i
BEACH RESPONSE DUE TO THE PRESSURE EQUALIZATION MODULES (PEM)
SYSTEM
MOHD SHAHRIZAL BIN AB RAZAK
A project report submitted in fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil-Hydraulics and Hydrology)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JUNE 2009
iii
Especially dedicated to my beloved family, fellow friends and to everyone who involves
in my life, you will always be in my heart……………………..
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to convey my sincerest thanks to my supervisor Professor Hadibah
Binti Ismail for her dedicated guidance, valuable assistance and endless encouragement
throughout the accomplishment of this project.
I am grateful to the staff of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia who
had been very helpful in providing assistance throughout the work. Special thanks are
also extended to Director of Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia for his
permission to allow the accessibility of data for this project. My thanks are also extended
to other lecturers for their advice whether directly or indirectly in improving my Master
Project. Also not forgetting my friends especially Mr. Bahman Esfandiar Jahromi, Miss
Hasmida Hamza, and Mr. Abdul Haslim Shukor Lim for their guidance in helping me to
clarify any problems related to this study.
I am indebted to my employer Universiti Putra Malaysia and Ministry of Higher
Education for providing me the opportunity and the financial means to pursue this study.
Last but not least, my deepest and eternal gratitude to all those who had helped directly
or indirectly in my project.
v
ABSTRACT
Coastal erosion is a significant problem with dramatic effects on the coastline.
There is an urgent need to introduce new and cost-effective measures that can mitigate
the impacts on the shoreline. This study has been initiated to investigate the response of
the beach at Teluk Cempedak due to the beach nourishment and Pressure Equalization
Modules (PEM) system. The objectives of this study are the determination of closure
depth and effectiveness of the system in treating the erosion process. The depth of
closure was examined using both data from a series of beach profile surveys and from
empirical formulae. The widely accepted Fixed Depth Change (FDC) method was
explored and the hc before and after the installation of PEM system was investigated.
The research found that multiple closure points can occur along the profile lines. The
closure depth after the installation of PEM system was found to be deeper and the
closure point is further seaward at the southern part of the beach. The Hellemeier‟s
equation over predict hc by 76 %, however it reveals that the equation is still robust in
determining an upper limit of hc. The simplified equation was developed at Teluk
Cempedak beach in predicting closure depth and can be equated to 0.98 times H0.137.
From the survey data, it is found that after three years, the total sand volume and beach
elevation are significantly higher in PEM areas. Generally, the result presented indicates
the decreasing value of rate of erosion. Thus it revealed that PEM system is able to
stimulate accretion of sand and yet slow down the erosion process. However, based on
the sand volume distribution pattern, after three years, it is obviously seen that the
accretion of sand occurring at the northern part while erosion process is taking place in
the southern part of the beach. Based on the distribution pattern of bed elevation over the
chainage, overall, the upper part of the beach is convex unlike earlier i.e before the
installation of PEM system, where the beach was low and concave. This phenomena
indicates that the system contribute to a significant accretion of sand and thus created a
higher beach level at about 10 m to 55 m towards the sea. However, this trend only can
be seen at a certain chainage. The PEM efficiency in terms of increment in bed elevation
can only be observed at CH 400 till CH 800 while at CH 900 towards the south, the
efficiency is decreasing. This shows that the accretion of sand is only occurring at the
northern part and the beach is eroding at the southern part. Therefore, based on the
available four years record of data, there is a certain part of the beach benefiting from the
PEM system. However, some parts are still experiencing the erosion process.
vi
ABSTRAK
Hakisan pantai merupakan masalah ketara yang memberi kesan kepada
perairan pantai. Oleh itu, terdapat tindakan segera untuk memperkenalkan kaedah
baru dan lebih menjimatkan yang mana dapat mengatasi masalah hakisan pantai
ini. Kajian ini telah dijalankan untuk menyiasat tindak balas pantai terhadap
penambakan pantai (beach nourishment) dan sistem Pressure Equalization
Modules (PEM). Objektif utama kajian ini adalah penentuan kedalaman tertutup
(closure depth) dan keberkesanan sistem dalam merawat hakisan pantai.
Kedalaman tertutup telah dikenalpasti menggunakan kedua-dua data iaitu data
ukur bersiri dan formula empirikal. Kaedah Perubahan Kedalaman Tetap telah
digunakan dan kedalaman tertutup sebelum dan selepas pemasangan sistem PEM
telah disiasat. Kajian menunjukkan bahawa beberapa kedalaman tertutup boleh
berlaku di sepanjang garis ukur. Kedalaman tertutup selepas pemasangan sistem
PEM didapati lebih dalam dan lokasi titik kedalaman tertutup jauh menghala ke
tengah laut khususnya di bahagian selatan pantai. Persamaan Hellemeier didapati
lebih tinggi dengan lebihan purata 76 % bagaimanapun mendedahkan bahawa
persamaan ini masih kukuh bagi menentukan nilai had teratas untuk hc.
Persamaan ringkas telah dicipta bagi pantai Teluk Cempedak dalam menentukan
kedalaman tertutup dan boleh disamakan dengan 0.98 kali ketinggian ombak
H0.137. Daripada data ukur juga, jumlah isipadu pasir and ketinggian pantai
didapati lebih tinggi di kawasan pemasangan sistem PEM selepas tiga tahun
pemantauan dijalankan. Umumnya, hasil keputusan menunjukkan bahawa kadar
hakisan telah menurun. Ini menunjukkan bahawa sistem PEM berupaya
mengumpul pasir sekaligus melambatkan proses hakisan. Walaubagaimanapun,
berdasarkan kepada jumlah pengagihan isipadu pasir, jelas menunjukkan
bahawa pengumpulan pasir hanya terjadi di bahagian utara pantai manakala
proses hakisan masih berlaku di bahagian selatan pantai. Berdasarkan kepada
bentuk pengagihan bagi ketinggian pantai pula, secara keseluruhannya, bahagian
atas pantai lebih cembung berbanding sebelumnya yang mana ianya lebih
cekung. Fenomena ini menunjukkan bahawa sistem PEM menyumbang kepada
pengumpulan pasir seterusnya meningkatkan ketinggian pantai pada jarak 10 m
hingga 55 m menghala ke arah laut. Bagaimanapun, keadaan ini hanya berlaku di
kawasan-kawasan tertentu sahaja. Keberkesanan PEM dari segi peningkatan
ketinggian pantai hanya berlaku di CH 400 hingga CH 800 sementara di CH 900
menghala ke selatan pantai pula menunjukkan penurunan peratus keberkesanan.
vii
Ini menunjukkan bahawa pengumpulan pasir terjadi di bahagian utara pantai
manakala proses hakisan masih berlaku di bahagian selatan pantai. Oleh yang
demikian, berdasarkan kepada data ukur bagi 4 tahun kerja pemantauan, terdapat
sebahagian kawasan pantai yang mendatangkan manfaat daripada sistem PEM
manakala sebahagiannya lagi masih mengalami proses hakisan.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
i
CONFESSION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
viii
LIST OF TABLES
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
xx
LIST OF SYMBOLS
xxii
LIST OF APPENDIX
xxiv
CHAPTER
TITLE
PAGE
I
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Introduction
1
1.2
Statement of Problem
4
1.3
Objectives of Study
6
ix
1.4
Scope of Study
7
1.4.1 Study Area
7
1.4.2 Data Collection and Analysis
8
1.4.3 Determination of Closure Depth
9
Terminology Used in This Study
9
1.5.1 Beach Nourishment
9
1.5.2 Closure Depth
10
1.5.3 Equilibrium Profile
10
1.5.4 Pressure Equalization Modules System
11
Importance of Study
11
LITERATURE REVIEW
13
2.1
13
1.5
1.6
II
Introduction
PART A: BEACH NOURISHMENT/ DEPTH OF CLOSURE/
BEACH EQUILIBRIUM PROFILE
2.2
Beach Nourishment
14
2.2.1 Definition(s) of Beach Nourishment from
Different Perspectives
15
2.2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Beach
2.3
2.4
Nourishment Activities
16
Identification of the Depth of Closure
18
2.3.1 Estimation of the Depth of Closure
23
2.3.2 Depth of Closure and Vertical Datum
24
Previous Case Study- Determination of Depth of Closure
24
x
2.5
2.4.1 Ocean City, Maryland
25
2.4.2 Pria de Fero, Algarve, South Portugal
25
2.4.3 Kelantan Coast, Malaysia
26
Equilibrium Beach Profile
27
PART B: PRESSURE EQUALIZATION MODULE (PEM)
SYSTEM
2.6
2.7
III
Pressure Equalization Module (PEM) System
Application Concept
30
2.6.1 The Advantage of PEM System
32
Design Criteria of Pressure Equalization Module (PEM)
System at Teluk Cempedak Beach, Kuantan
33
2.7.1 System Installation
35
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
39
3.1
Introduction
39
3.2
Study Area
40
3.3
Data Set
43
3.3.1 Beach Profile Survey
43
3.3.2 Winds and Waves Data
44
3.3.3 Tidal Data
44
3.3.4 Bed Sediment Data
45
Measurement Techniques
47
3.4.1 Beach Profile Measurement
47
3.4.2 Historical Shoreline Changes
48
3.4
xi
3.5
3.4.3 Tidal Data Measurement
49
3.4.4 Aerial Photograph
49
Data Analysis
50
3.5.1 Determination of Depth of Closure from
Beach Data Profile
50
3.5.2 Determination of Depth of Closure from
Empirical Formula
3.6
IV
53
PEM Effectiveness Evaluation
53
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
56
4.1
Introduction
56
4.2
Description of Study Area
57
4.3
Data Set
58
4.3.1 Beach Profile Survey
59
4.3.2 Wave Data Analysis
62
4.3.3 Tidal Height Information
64
4.3.4 Sediment Properties
65
4.4
4.5
Determination of Depth of Closure from Beach Profile
Survey
69
Depth of Closure for Pre-Project Condition (2003)
69
4.5.1 Closure Depth at CH 700 and CH 1400
69
4.5.2 Closure Depth at CH 100
70
4.5.3 Closure Depth at CH 200
71
4.5.4 Closure Depth at CH 300
72
4.5.5 Closure Depth at CH 400
73
4.5.6 Closure Depth at CH 500
74
xii
4.5.7 Closure Depth at CH 600
75
4.5.8 Closure Depth at CH 800
76
4.5.9 Closure Depth at CH 900
77
4.5.10 Closure Depth at CH 1000
78
4.5.11 Closure Depth at CH 1100
79
4.5.12 Closure Depth at CH 1200
80
4.5.13 Closure Depth at CH 1300
81
4.6
Summary of Depth of Closure for Pre-Project Condition
82
4.7
Depth of Closure for Post-Project Condition
83
4.8
2005 Beach Profile
83
4.8.1 Closure Depth at CH 100
84
4.8.2 Closure Depth at CH 200
85
4.8.3 Closure Depth at CH 300
86
4.8.4 Closure Depth at CH 400
87
4.8.5 Closure Depth at CH 500
88
4.8.6 Closure Depth at CH 600
89
4.8.7 Closure Depth at CH 700
90
4.8.8 Closure Depth at CH 800
91
4.8.9 Closure Depth at CH 900
92
4.8.10 Closure Depth at CH 1000
93
4.8.11 Closure Depth at CH 1100
94
4.8.12 Closure Depth at CH 1200
95
4.8.13 Closure Depth at CH 1300
96
4.8.14 Closure Depth at CH 1400
97
4.9
4.10
Summary of Depth of Closure for
2005 Post-Project Condition
98
2006 Beach Profile
99
xiii
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.10.1 Closure Depth at CH 100
99
4.10.2 Closure Depth at CH 200
100
4.10.3 Closure Depth at CH 300
101
4.10.4 Closure Depth at CH 400
102
4.10.5 Closure Depth at CH 500 until CH 800
103
4.10.6 Closure Depth at CH 900
105
4.10.7 Closure Depth at CH 1000
106
4.10.8 Closure Depth at CH 1100 and CH 1200
107
4.10.9 Closure Depth at CH 1300
109
4.10.10Closure Depth at CH 1400
110
Summary of Depth of Closure for
2006 Post-Project Condition
111
2007 Beach Profile
112
4.12.1 Closure Depth at CH 100
112
4.12.2 Closure Depth at CH 200
113
4.12.3 Closure Depth at CH 300
114
4.12.4 Closure Depth at CH 500
115
4.12.5 Closure Depth at CH 600
116
4.12.6 Closure Depth at CH 700
117
4.12.7 Closure Depth at CH 800
118
4.12.8 Closure Depth at CH 900
119
4.12.9 Closure Depth at CH 1000
120
4.12.10Closure Depth at CH 1100
121
4.12.11Closure Depth at CH 1200
122
4.12.12Closure Depth at CH 1300
123
4.12.13Closure Depth at CH 1400
124
Summary of Depth of Closure for
xiv
2007 Post-Project Condition
4.14
Comparison of hc between Pre-Project Condition and
Post-Project Condition
4.15
4.16
V
125
126
Estimation of Predictive Closure Depth by
Hallemeier‟s Equation
128
PEM Effectiveness Evaluation
130
4.16.1 Total Sand Volume Changes
130
4.16.2 Beach Level Changes
136
4.16.3 Distribution Pattern of Beach Level Changes
137
4.16.4 PEM Efficiency
139
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
143
5.1
Introduction
143
5.2
Recommendation
147
5.2.1 Criteria of Limit Line
147
5.2.2 Standard Deviation Depth Change (SDDC)
Method
148
5.2.3 Profile Survey
148
5.2.4 Predictive Formula for Each Chainage
149
REFERENCES
150
APPENDICES
154
xv
LIST OF TABLES
NO.
TITLE
PAGE
1.1
List of Coastal Erosion Areas in Malaysia
5
4.1
Data Available for This Study
58
4.2(a)
Centerline Coordinates of Selected Survey Data Set and
Its Correspondence Depth (Before Installation of
PEM System)
4.2(b)
61
Centerline Coordinates of Selected Survey Data Set and
Its Correspondence Depth (After Installation of
PEM System)
61
4.3
Tidal Level Along Study Shoreline (meter, LSD)
65
4.4
Summary of Design Size Ranges for Borrow Sand
67
4.5(a)
Sand Size Analysis (upper beach face for pre-project condition)
68
4.5(b)
Sand Size Analysis (lower beach face for pre-project condition)
68
4.6
Closure Depth for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
82
4.7
Closure Depth for 2005 Post-Project Profile
98
4.8
Closure Depth for 2006 Post-Project Profile
111
4.9
Closure Depth for 2007 Post-Project Profile
125
4.10
hc Simplified Equation Compared with Effective hc 2007
128
4.11
Total Sand Volume and Sand Gain or Loss at the Study Area
132
4.12
PEM Efficiency
140
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
NO.
TITLE
PAGE
1.1
The Location of Study Area at Teluk Cempedak Beach, Kuantan
7
2.1
Schematic Diagram of the Depth of Beach Profile Closure
19
2.2
Definition Sketch of the Closure Depth
20
2.3
Pressure Equalization Module – schematization
30
2.4
PEM Function Dewatering the Beach
32
2.5
Design of Pressure Equalization Module Pipes
34
2.6
Preparation for PEM Installation on 9th July 2004
37
2.7
Preparation of borehole for PEM Installation on 9th July 2004
37
2.8
Placement of PEM Pipe
38
2.9
Exposed PEM Pipe at Chainage 800
38
3.1
Site Study Area
40
3.2
The Beach Slope is Steeper Due to Erosion Problem
41
3.3
The Beach is Narrower and Recreational Activities are Limited
for Beach Visitor
41
3.4(a)
Beach Condition Before the Installation of PEM System
42
3.4(b)
Beach Condition After the Installation of PEM System
42
3.5
Location of Sediment Samples and Sand Source
46
3.6
The Algorithm of Closure Depth Determination
52
xvii
3.7
Research Methodology Chart
55
4.1
Profile Line at Study Area
60
4.2
Histogram of Design Wave Height
62
4.3
H0.137 Wave from SSMO Wave Data (1949-1983)
63
4.4
Relationship between Wave Height and Wave Period
64
4.5
Plan View for Distribution of Design Sand Size
67
4.6
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 100 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
70
4.7
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 200 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
71
4.8
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 300 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
72
4.9
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 400 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
73
4.10
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 500 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
74
4.11
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 600 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
75
4.12
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 800 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
76
4.13
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 900 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
77
4.14
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1000 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
78
4.15
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1100 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
79
4.16
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1200 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
80
4.17
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1300 for 2003 Pre- Project Profile
81
4.18
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 100 for 2005 Post- Project Profile
82
4.19
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 200 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
83
4.20
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 300 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
86
4.21
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 400 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
87
4.22
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 500 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
88
4.23
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 600 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
89
4.24
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 700 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
90
4.25
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 800 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
91
4.26
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 900 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
92
xviii
4.27
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1000 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
93
4.28
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1100 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
94
4.29
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1200 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
95
4.30
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1300 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
96
4.31
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1400 for 2005 Post - Project Profile
97
4.32
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 100 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
99
4.33
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 200 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
100
4.34
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 300 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
101
4.35
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 400 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
102
4.36
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 500 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
103
4.37
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 600 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
104
4.38
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 700 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
104
4.39
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 800 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
105
4.40
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 900 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
106
4.41
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1000 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
107
4.42
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1100 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
108
4.43
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1200 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
108
4.44
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1300 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
109
4.45
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1400 for 2006 Post - Project Profile
110
4.46
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 100 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
112
4.47
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 200 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
113
4.48
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 300 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
114
4.49
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 500 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
115
4.50
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 600 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
116
4.51
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 700 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
117
4.52
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 800 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
118
4.53
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 900 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
119
xix
4.54
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1000 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
120
4.55
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1100 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
121
4.56
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1200 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
122
4.57
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1300 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
123
4.58
Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1400 for 2007 Post - Project Profile
124
4.59
Closure Depth at Teluk Cempedak beach, Kuantan
127
4.60
Closure Point at Teluk Cempedak beach, Kuantan
127
4.61
Total Sand Volume (m3)
131
4.62
Sand Gain and Loss for Year 2005
134
4.63
Sand Gain and Loss for Year 2006
134
4.64
Sand Gain and Loss for Year 2007
135
4.65
Sand Volume Distribution Pattern
135
4.66
Average Beach Level 70 m wide
136
4.67
Beach Level at CH 400 and CH 500
137
4.68
Beach Level at CH 600 and CH 700
138
4.69
Beach Level at CH 800 and CH 900
138
4.70
Beach Level at CH 1000 and CH 1100
138
4.71
Beach Level at CH 1200 and CH 1300
139
4.72
PEM Efficiency at CH 400 and CH 500
141
4.73
PEM Efficiency at CH 600 and CH 700
141
4.74
PEM Efficiency at CH 800 and CH 900
141
4.75
PEM Efficiency at CH 1000 and CH 1100
142
4.76
PEM Efficiency at CH 1200 and CH 1300
142
xx
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CED
Coastal Engineering Division
CEM
Coastal Engineering Manual
CH
Chainage
cm
centimeter
DID
Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia
EDM
Electronic Distance Measuring
FDC
Fixed Depth Change
hc
Depth of Closure
HAT
Highest Astronomical Tide
LAT
Lowest Astronomical Tide
LSD
Land Survey Datum
m
meter
mm
millimeter
MSL
Mean Sea Level
MHW
Mean High Water
MHHW
Mean Higher High Water
MLHW
Mean Lower High Water
MLW
Mean Low Water
MHLW
Mean Higher Low Water
xxi
MLLW
Mean Lower Low Water
MMD
Malaysian Meteorological Department
MRCB
Malaysia Resource Corporation Berhad
NOS
National Ocean Survey
PEM
Pressure Equalization Modules
SDDC
Standard Deviation Depth Change
SSMO
Synoptic Shipboard Meteorological Observation
USGS
U.S Geological Survey Quadrangles
xxii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A
profile scale parameter with dimensions of length to the 1/3 power
D16
size of material of which 16% is finer
D50
size of material of which 50% is finer
D84
size of material of which 84% is finer
Dc/ h*/ hc
closure depth
g
gravity
h
water depth at distance y from the shoreline
hCi
depth of closure, innershore; from profile survey
hcm
depth of closure, middleshore; from profile survey
hco
depth of closure, outershore; from profile survey
He
non breaking significant wave height that is exceeded 12 hour per t years
or ( 100/730t)% of the time
H0.137
significant wave height exceeded 12 hours in a year
H/Hs
annual mean significant wave height
m
fore shore slope of the beach profile
t
time
Te
wave period associated with He
xxiii
y
equilibrium beach profile
vb
amplitude of the wave induced bottom velocity
ρ
mass densities of water
ρs
mass densities of sediment
σH
standard deviation
xxiv
LIST OF APPENDIX
APPENDIX
A
TITLE
PAGE
Profile Surveys from the Coastline of Pantai Teluk Cempedak
Kuantan 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007
154
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
Land based activities and natural physical processes have resulted in significant
modifications of the shorelines in many countries, with drastic effects on the coastal
geomorphology as well as on the coastal infrastructures. There is an urgent need to
introduce new and cost-effective measures that can mitigate the impacts on the
shorelines. In many locations, coastal erosion is a significant problem with dramatic
effects on the coastline. The impact on coast-near infrastructures and property can be
massive. Until now the urgent need for coastal erosion protection, has forced society to
2
use costly solutions with bulky constructions and beach nourishment, where the
dredging part of the process is very hostile to the marine environment.
Coastal protection can generally be divided into hard engineering and soft
engineering (Ghazali, 2005). Hard engineering structures such as revetments, seawalls,
bulkheads and groynes are considered traditional erosion protection structures with
distinct functions. These are typically constructed of quarry stones or concrete units.
Seawalls and revetments are constructed parallel to the shoreline and form a barrier
between waves and the coast. Whilst preventing any further loss of material landwards,
waves reflected by the seawall causes scouring at the toe in front of the seawall and
eventual lowering of the beach. Thus where recreational space is concerned, the use of
seawalls and revetments are not beneficial in the long run as the end result is a
deepening or steepening of the sea bed in front of the structure resulting in loss of beach
space.
The term „soft engineering‟ is normally used to describe methods that depart
from hard protection structures that use quarry stones or concrete blocks as the main
structural component. The use of sand either as a fill material placed directly on the
eroding beach or encased within geotextiles are amongst the methods that qualify as soft
engineering. In beach nourishment, loose sediments are imported and placed on the
target beach to form a wider beach berm as a buffer for waves. The „new‟ beach will
then continue to be shaped by the natural forces i.e. wind, wave and tidal currents, to an
equilibrium shape. Beach nourishment is now common and is the preferred method of
protecting or rehabilitating eroding recreational beaches (Ghazali, 2004). The
construction process however involves dredging, transport and placement of sand in a
marine environment which causes water quality problems, habitat displacement and
stress to marine life. Beach nourishment is also considered semi-permanent and requires
replenishment as time progresses.
3
Beach nourishment, also called artificial nourishment, replenishment, beach fill,
and restoration, comprises the placement of large quantities of good quality sand within
the near-shore system usually to address a continuing deficit of sand, manifested by
shoreline recession (Dean, 2002). The term nourishment applies to both the initial
placement of material and to later nourishments for the projects where multiple
placements occur. The terms beach nourishment may be used to differentiate between
material that is placed on the sub-aerial beach and its underwater extensions from profile
nourishment or berm placement which involves the placement of material offshore with
the anticipation that either the material will provide protection to the shore from erosion
by reducing the effects of waves.
SIC, Skagon Innovation Centre (Jakobsen, 2007) has invented an
environmentally friendly coastal protection system. The SIC system is based on Pressure
Equalization Modules (PEM). A long term and comprehensive test of the efficiency has
been carried out on the west coast of Denmark. Furthermore, a three year scientific
research programme was performed in year 2005. The obtained result shows that the
system is far more efficient than conventional methods such as groins, breakwaters, and
sand nourishment. Due to the well-known lee side erosion effect, groins and breakwaters
create even greater erosion in adjacent coastal areas. Furthermore, Jakobsen reported that
sand nourishment by dredging is in general terms a very expensive approach (about
130,000 USD/km/year in Denmark), but unfortunately, it is an inefficient solution since
usually the sand will disappear during the first spring period.
4
1.2
Statement of Problem
The evolution of the coast is produced by natural processes that occur on a broad
time scale ranging from hours to millennia. Beach erosion is one such process that
occurs when the losses of beach sediment exceed the gains. As this volume of sediment
decreases, the beaches become narrower. When backed by fixed developments, beaches
are unable to respond naturally to changes, resulting in a cessation of beach/dune
interactions, instability of the fronting beach, and a reduction of sediment inputs into the
sediment budget. In the absence of development, coastal erosion is not a hazard. The
presence of large and expensive communities in the coastal zone creates the potential for
major disasters resulting from erosion. Erosion is typically episodic, either with the
shore recovering afterward or with the episodes being cumulative and leading to a
progressive retreat of the shoreline and property losses. The erosional impact on
properties depends on the width of the buffering beach and on the nature of the beach as
defined by the morphodynamics model of Wright and Short (1983).
Malaysia has about 4809 km of coastline. Of the 4809 km of coastline, about
1415 km is at present subject to erosion of various degree of severity (Annual Report
DID, 2007). Along the coast, sediment is continuously being moved. When the rate of
sediment entering and leaving the coast equals, the coast is said to be in dynamic
equilibrium. Erosion occurs when, over a period of time, the volume of sediment
transported out is greater than that transported into the coast. It follows that the reverse
will result in accretion. The erosion process occurs continuously and as a result, the
beach slowly retreats. This is normally indicated by the formation of beach scarp along
the coast.
Erosion may be amplified during monsoon period when high water levels,
associated with the season, result in waves breaking directly against the scarp, causing
loss of material. Though, some of this material might be returned to the shore by the
5
swells after the monsoon, the quantity returned is normally much less; hence the nett
result is erosion. Control of coastal erosion has now become an important economic and
social need. Table 1.0 shows the list of coastal erosion areas in Malaysia. From this
table, it can be concluded that 73.40 % or 52.1 km of the total length of coastline in
Pahang area has been eroded. To this end, the government is implementing a strategy to
control the erosion problem. The government has spent about RM 15,400,000.00 to
invest in a new system for control of coastal erosion called the Pressure Equalization
Module (PEM). The system has been successfully installed at the Teluk Cempedak
beach in Pahang and is the first coastal erosion project applying this method in Malaysia
and Asia (Annual Report DID, 2004).
Table 1.0: List of Coastal Erosion Areas in Malaysia
Length of
Coastline
State
(km)
State
Perlis
Kedah
Pulau Pinang
Perak
Selangor
N.Sembilan
Melaka
Johor
Pahang
Terengganu
Kelantan
W.P Labuan
Sarawak
Sabah
Total
20
148
152
230
213
58
73
492
271
244
71
59
1035
1743
4809
Length of Coastline Having Erosion
Category 1
CRITICAL
EROSION
(km)
Length
Critically
Eroded
4.4
31.4
42.4
28.3
63.5
3.9
15.6
28.9
12.4
20
5
2.5
17.3
12.8
288.4
6.0 %
Category 2
Category 3
SIGNIFICANT ACCEPTABLE
EROSION
EROSION
(km)
(km)
3.7
2.2
19.7
18.8
22.3
7.7
15.1
50.3
5.2
10
9.5
3
22.3
3.5
193.3
4.0 %
6.4
6.9
1.1
93.1
66.1
12.9
6
155.6
37.6
122.4
37.6
25.1
9.6
279.2
932.8
19.4 %
Total Length of
Coastline
Having Erosion
(km)
(%)
14.5
43.5
53.2
140.2
151.9
24.5
36.7
234.8
52.1
152.4
52.1
30.6
49.2
295.5
1,415
72.50
29.40
41.60
61.00
71.30
42.20
50.30
47.70
73.4
62.50
73.40
51.90
4.80
17.00
29.41 %
Source: Annual Report, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, (DID) Malaysia (2007)
6
Based on the Detailed Design Report 2006, Teluk Cempedak beach has a history
of erosion. The beach area has undergone slow and steady erosion that has resulted in
the narrowing of the beach area, which has affected adversely on the recreational and
tourist activity in this area. Although the beach is classified as stable under the National
Coastal Engineering Study (NCES) of 1985, at present the average retreat rate is
estimated to be 0.8 m/year. If protective measures are not taken, the beach eventually
will be eroded, and the ocean waves approach the land will endanger the properties
located along the beachfront and in the hinterland. At present, coastal structures of
various designs had been built to protect the public recreational areas occupying the
northern part of the beach and the hotels on the southern part. However more efforts are
needed to protect and develop the beach to be among the best tourists‟ attractions in
Malaysia.
1.3
Objectives of Study
The main objective of this study is to investigate the response of the Teluk
Cempedak beach due to installation of the Pressure Equalization Module (PEM) system.
The specific objective of this study is to determine the depth of closure due to the
installation of the Pressure Equalization Modules (PEM) system as well as to evaluate
the PEM effectiveness based on total sand volume and beach level retained on the beach
after a specific time period. A comparison of results before and after the installation of
PEM system has been successfully investigated.
7
1.4
Scope of Study
1.4.1
Study Area
The location of the study area is at Teluk Cempedak on the East Coast of
Peninsular Malaysia near the town of Kuantan (see Figure 1.1). Teluk Cempedak is
situated in a pocket bay adjacent to Hyatt- and Sheraton Hotel and has a total length of
1100 metres. The beach called Teluk Cempedak is one of the main tourist attractions in
Pahang, where there are hotels and eateries occupying the northern portion of the beach,
while Hyatt and Sheraton hotels are situated in the southern part. The beach is located
between the headlands of Tanjung Pelindung Tengah and Tanjung Tembeling, with
Sungai Cempedak draining into the northern end of the bay. This river drains Bukit
Pelindung and discharges some sediment and moderately polluted water from developed
areas within its catchment. The bay has been developed for public recreation as well as
for local and international tourism activities.
Location of Study Area:Teluk Cempedak Beach,
Kuantan, Pahang
Figure 1.1: The Location of Study Area at Teluk Cempedak Beach, Kuantan
8
1.4.2
Data Collection and Analysis
Data collection is the most important part of this study. Data made available in
this study comprise the following:-
(i)
Profile survey data.
(ii)
Bathymetric data.
(iii)
Wave data.
(iv)
Wind data.
(v)
Tidal data.
(vi)
Bed sediment data.
A detailed description of this data is discussed in the following chapter. This data
had been used to determine the depth of closure by using analytical procedure. Data
analysis involves the following scope of work:-
(a)
Compiling, plotting and comparing series of survey data.
(b)
Analysis of wave data to obtain the significant wave height and wave
period.
(c)
Analysis of sediment data for determination of mean particle size (D50).
(d)
Determination of closure depth using Hellemeier equation (1981).
9
1.4.3
Determination of Closure Depth
Depth of closure is an important concept in coastal engineering that defines the
seaward limit of significant net sediment transport along a wave-dominated sandy beach
profile over a period of time and is used to establish shoreline and volume change
relationships. The depth of closure can be observed along a specific segment of coast in
a series of profiles taken over a period of years as the depth at which the profiles
consistently come together within the accuracy of the survey procedures. (Robertson et
al, 2008).
Ferreira (2003) reported that the depth of closure is the depth that separates the
active cross-shore profile from a deeper zone where the sediment transport is much
weaker and where morphological changes are less perceptible. He suggested that this
depth should be determined by morphological comparison, existing some formulations
(e.g. Hallermeier, 1981, Birkemeier, 1985) that can be used for estimating a standard
annual value for each coastal region when a morphological approach cannot be used.
1.5
Terminology Used in This Study
1.5.1
Beach Nourishment
Beach nourishment involves the placement of large quantities of sand or gravel
in the littoral zone to advance the shoreline seaward. Such nourishment can be used to
create or to maintain a recreational beach or to build out the shore in order to improve
10
the capacity of the beach to protect coastal properties from wave attack (Komar,1998).
Beach nourishment represents a soft solution and is the only form of shore protection
that attempts to maintain a naturally appearing beach.
1.5.2
Closure Depth
According to Nicholls et al (1998) in their Coastal Engineering Technical Note,
they claimed the depth of closure for a given or characteristic time interval is the most
landward depth seaward of which there is no significant change in bottom elevation and
no significant net sediment transport between the near-shore and the offshore.
1.5.3
Equilibrium Profile
Equilibrium beach profile is conceptually the result of the balance of destructive
versus constructive forces (Dean, 2002). The beach profile is the variation of water depth
with distance offshore from the shoreline. In nature, the equilibrium profile is considered
to be a dynamic concept, for the incident wave field and water level change continuously
in nature; therefore, the profile responds continuously. By averaging these profiles over
a long period, a mean equilibrium can be defined.
11
1.5.4
Pressure Equalization Module System
Pressure Equalization Module (PEM) system is a new innovative system
originated from Denmark for beach erosion control. The system was successfully
installed in many countries all over around the world including Australia, Ghana,
Denmark as well as Malaysia. It is designed to stimulate accretion of sand on certain
beaches and to slow down the erosion process in some other beaches. PEM system is
radically different from other protection measures where hard structures like concrete
walls, rock embankment and groynes are used. This system has low impact on the
aesthetics of the beach area and thus represents a more environmental friendly coastal
protection method. It is assumed that under PEM influence the groundwater table in the
beach will be lower and the swash infiltration-exfiltration rate will decrease, that will
cause decreasing of intensity of the beach erosion in the swash zone.
1.6
Importance of Study
By the end of this study, the results presented will provide some base line
information for local engineers in order to suggest a better plan for beach protection in
other location by using a combination of PEM system and beach nourishment. Based on
the findings of this study, the following expected results can be drawn:-
(a)
The depth of closure will be higher as well as the point of closure will be
further seaward and the width of the beach will be wider due to the effect of
the PEM system.
12
(b)
From this study, engineers will be able to utilize an analytical model,
specific to the local conditions, to predict depths of closure for areas where
the beach has been installed with a PEM system.
(c)
The Pressure Equalization Modules system is expected to effectively create
a new beach by enhancing infiltration and sediment deposition.
(d)
An effective PEM in combination with beach nourishment will be able to
extend the lifetime of a nourished beach considerably. This technique of
using a soft engineering approach could be applied to other beaches as well.
13
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
This chapter comprises two parts, namely Part A and Part B. Part A consists of
the literature review to provide the historical background regarding beach nourishment
and the theory of determining the closure depth as well as equilibrium profile. Part B
consists of the Pressure Equalization Modules (PEM) system that is being used for shore
protection at the study area. Further explanation based on the PEM installation and how
it works was discussed also in this part. Furthermore, some related case studies with
regard to this PEM were also discussed.
14
PART A: BEACH NOURISHMENT/ DEPTH OF CLOSURE/ BEACH
EQUILIBRIUM PROFILE
2.2
Beach Nourishment
As mentioned previously in Chapter 1, beach nourishment is one of the common
soft engineering techniques utilized for beach protection. Beach nourishment stands in
contrast as the only engineered shore protection alternative that directly addresses the
problem of a sand budget and deficit, because it is a process of adding sand from sources
outside the eroding system. The result is a wider beach that improves natural protection
while also providing additional recreational area. Beach nourishment is a viable
engineering alternative (National Research Council, 1995) for shore protection and is the
principal technique for beach restoration; its application is suitable for some, but not all,
locations where erosion is occurring.
Local, state, and federal regulatory agencies strongly encourage the use of nonstructural measures such as beach nourishment to prevent storm damage and control
flooding, because beach nourishment closely resembles natural processes and is the least
disruptive to the littoral transport processes. Structural measures include seawalls and
revetments which often have adverse effects on adjacent and nearby beaches by
increasing erosion through wave reflection and by eliminating important sediment
sources. However, site-specific conditions (e.g., erosion rate, grain size distribution,
wave climate) and proximity of coastal resources (e.g., salt marsh, eelgrass, shellfish,
and rocky sub-tidal habitat) must be considered to minimize potential impacts to these
sensitive resource areas as well as maximize protection of coastal development and
infrastructure.
15
The most important factor for beach nourishment projects is the grain size
distribution of the source material as compared to the native beach material, also referred
to as sediment compatibility. For dredging projects, state policy requires that clean,
compatible sediment be placed on adjacent beaches to keep the material in the littoral
system (Haney et al., 2003). Note that location is important. If sediment is placed where
it would not be stable due to its incompatibility, then unintended adverse impacts on
seagrass, shellfish beds, mangroves, or the dredge channel could result.
2.2.1
Definition(s) of Beach Nourishment from Different Perspectives
The placement of sand on a beach to restore (to build) is referred to as beach
nourishment or beach fill and is the most non intrusive technique available to the coastal
engineer. Typically, sand from offshore or onshore sources is placed on the eroding
beach. Beach nourishment with its attendant widening of the beach, is used to
accomplish several goals as follows; (i) to build additional recreational area; (ii) to offer
storm protection (both by reducing the wave energy nearshore and creating a sacrificial
beach to be eroded during a storm); and (iii) to provide, in some cases, environmental
habitat for endangered species (Dean and Dalrymple, 2002).
According to National Research Council (1995), beach nourishment is a
technique used to restore an eroding or lost beach or to create a new sandy shoreline,
involves the placement of sand fill with or without supporting structures along the
shoreline to widen the beach. It is the only management tool which serves the dual
purpose of protecting coastal lands and preserving beach resources. Beach nourishment
requires large volumes of beach-quality sand. The initial nourishment project typically
requires thousands of cubic meters of sand per kilometer of shoreline, and most beaches
need periodic re-nourishment.
16
Other organization classified beach nourishment as the process of mechanically
or hydraulically placing sand directly on an eroding shore to restore or form, and
subsequently maintain, an adequate protective or desired recreational beach (USACE,
1984). Meanwhile, Oxford defines nourishment as “sustenance, food,” nourish is
defined as “sustain with food, promote the development of (the soil, etc.)” (Oxford Univ.
Press, 1998). The use of the term “beach nourishment” is considered by some to be a
misnomer, given that nothing is actually being nourished.
2.2.2
Advantages and Disadvantages of Beach Nourishment Activities
Beach nourishment is often proposed when beach erosion threatens to remove an
existing beach, make it too narrow to be used, and/or when property behind an eroding
beach is threatened. Because nourishment does not stop erosion, nourishment must be
repeated to maintain the beach. This is called "beach re-nourishment". It is helpful to
imagine that each nourishment project (i.e. an addition of a batch of sand) has a lifetime.
The project's lifetime is simply the time it takes for all the nourishment sand to be eroded
away. After that time, the beach would be back to its pre-nourishment width, and would
need to be re-nourished with sand. Generally, whatever project related to beach
protection will provide both positive and negative influences to the environmental
condition. Below are listed the positive effects and negative effects due to beach
nourishment adapted from Emery, K.O., (1961):-
(a)
Advantages:-
1.
Nourishment restores and widens the recreational beach.
2.
Structures behind the beach are protected as long as the added sand
remains.
17
3.
When erosion continues, beach nourishment does not leave hazards on
the beach or in the surf zone. This is a big advantage when compared with
"hard" beach stabilization structures like seawalls or groins. Seawalls may
protect structures behind the beach, but they almost always cause the
beach in front of the wall to become narrower. If erosion breaches the
seawall, then debris from the wall will be left on the beach and in the surf.
Since beach nourishment only puts sand on the beach, no debris is left
when it erodes.
(b)
Disadvantages:-
1.
Beach nourishment sand often (in fact, usually) erodes faster than the
natural sand on the beach. A good rule of thumb is that nourished beaches
erode two or three times faster than natural beaches. Erosion rates can
differ widely, however. The biggest factor for the lifetime of a nourished
beach is the number of storms that affect the beach. Storms are
unpredictable, so nourished beach lifetimes are unpredictable too. The
amount of sand added per yard of beach length and the sand placement
design determine the new beach width. Wider nourished beaches last
longer.
2.
Beach nourishment is expensive, and must be repeated periodically.
3.
The beach turns into a construction zone during nourishment.
4.
The process of nourishment may damage, destroy or otherwise hurt
marine and beach life by burying it, squishing it under bulldozers,
changing the shape of the beach or making the water near the beach too
muddy. In recent decades, a variety of plants, insects, turtles, shorebirds,
18
and other animals have become threatened or endangered as a result of
human alteration of beach environments. Many of these organisms rely
on storms and other natural beach processes (such as dune formation by
wind) for the creation and/or maintenance of their habitats. Because of
their dependence on natural beach processes, nourishment projects can
affect the survival of certain species. For example, beach nourishment can
modify a beach by making it too steep and/or too compacted for sea
turtles to climb up and bury their eggs. Another example involves filterfeeding marine organisms, such as certain species of clams that are
accustomed to relatively clear water. These organisms can be particularly
hard hit by the extreme muddiness produced by nourishment, and they
can die-off in large numbers.
5.
The sand added to the beach is often different from the natural beach
sand. It can be hard to find a perfect match. This means that the new
material may have smaller or larger diameter sand grains than the natural
beach. Such differences in "grain-size" affect the way waves interact with
a beach. This will affect surf conditions and bars on the submerged part
of the beach, and will also change the shape of the "dry beach", which is
where people spread their towels and go for strolls. Fine-grained sand
generally erodes faster than coarse-grained sand, so grain-size influences
the replenished beach's "lifetime".
2.3
Identification of the Depth of Closure
Depth of closure is an important concept in coastal engineering that defines the
seaward limit of significant net sediment transport along a wave-dominated sandy beach
profile over a period of time and is used to establish shoreline and volume change
19
relationships. The depth of closure can be observed along a specific segment of coast in
a series of profiles taken over a period of years as the depth at which the profiles
consistently come together within the accuracy of the survey procedures (Robertson et
al, 2008). Estimates of depth of closure have also been developed by Hallermeier and
Berkemeier based on wave climate. In some cases of following major storms, some
researchers found that movement of sediment beyond the depth of closure.
The depth of closure is the depth that separates the active cross-shore profile
from a deeper zone where the sediment transport is much weaker and where
morphological changes are less perceptible as illustrated in Figure 2.1. This depth should
be determined by morphological comparison, existing some formulations (e.g.
Hallermeier, 1981, Birkemeier, 1985) that can be used for estimating a standard annual
value for each coastal region when a morphological approach cannot be used.
Figure 2.1: Schematic Diagram of the Depth of Beach Profile Closure
(Courtesy of www.brynmawr.edu/geology/dbarber/ retrieved on September 2008)
20
The depth of closure has been defined in various ways, including profile pinchoff depth, critical depth, depth of active profile, depth of active (sediment) movement,
maximum depth of beach erosion, seaward limit of nearshore eroding wave processes,
and seaward limit of constructive wave processes. These definitions have various
applicabilities but are not considered sufficiently precise for beach-fill design. According
to Nicolls et al (1998) in their Coastal Engineering Technical Note, they claimed the
depth of closure as the following definition and illustrated as Figure 2.2 below:-
“The depth of closure for a given or characteristic time interval is the most
Iandward depth seaward of which there is no significant change in bottom
elevation and no significant net sediment transport between the near-shore and the
offshore.”
Figure 2.2: Definition Sketch of the Closure Depth
21
The seaward limit of effective seasonal profile fluctuation is a useful engineering
concept and has been introduced as the closure depth. Based on laboratory and field
data, Hellemeier (1978, 1981) developed the first rational approach to the determination
of the closure depth. He defines two depths, which is shallower depth and the deepest
seaward. The shallower of the two appears to be of greatest engineering relevance and
appropriate for beach nourishment design. Based on correlations with the Shields
parameter, the shallower depth, h*, was recommended as:0.03
ρ v2b
=
(ρs- ρ)gh*
(2.1)
where;
h*
= closure depth;
ρ and ρ s
= mass densities of water and sediment;
vb
= amplitude of the wave induced bottom velocity;
g
= gravity.
This result was developed into a more meaningful form for application using
linear wave theory and transferred to field conditions by rationalizing that the seaward
closure depth would be associated with wave conditions that are relatively rare.
Hellemeier chose the effective significant wave height, He, as that which is exceeded
only twelve hours per year or only 0.137 % of the time. The resulting approximate
equation for the depth of closure was determined to be
hc = 2.28He – 68.5 (He2/gTe2)
(2.2)
where;
Te = wave period associated with He which can be approximated from the annual
mean significant wave height H, and the standard deviation in wave height,
σH as
22
He = H + 5.6 σH
(2.3)
Birkemeier (1985) evaluated Hellemeier‟s relationship using higher quality field
measurements and recommended slightly different constants in the equation proposed by
Hellemeier;
hc = 1.75He – 57.9 (He2/gTe2)
(2.4)
and also found that the following simplified approximation provided nearly as good fit to
the data;
hc = 1.57He
(2.5)
As a conclusion, in the absence of profile data, equation 2.2 is recommended as
the primary calculation method for estimating the depth of closure because it provides a
more conservative estimate for design. Conservative prediction of the depth of closure
by the Hallemeier equation is confirmed by Nichols, Birkemeier, and Hallemeier (1996),
who showed that the formulation provides an upper bound to the scatter in
measurements of depth of closure at Duck, North Carolina. Nevertheless, equation 2.5
also was used in this study to compare the result with equation 2.2 as well as to figure
out the relationship among these equations. Therefore, boths equation 2.2 and 2.5 above
were used in this study to determine the depth of closure as recommended by Hallemeier
(1996).
23
2.3.1
Estimation of the Depth of Closure
In application to beach fill design, the depth of closure is required to estimate the
volume of sand needed to be placed on the beach profile. A typical design consists of a
dune (to mitigate damage from storm inundation, waves, erosion) and a berm to protect
the dune. The longevity of the berm is controlled by the historical shoreline-erosion rate
and end loss and transition effects (typically longshore transport processes), as well as
by adjustment of the filled profile to achieve equilibrium (a cross-shore transport
processes)(Kraus, et al, 1993). The depth of closure enters in calculating the volume per
unit length alongshore needed to be placed to provide a certain minimum berm width
over a certain time period. The most accurate method of determining the depth of closure
is from studying profile survey (Ghazali, 2007). Observed depth of closure can be
empirically derived from the observation of a series of profile surveys taken over a
period of time. Nicholls et.al (1996) claims that the depth of closure corresponds to a
pinch out depth below which depth changes become small.
In order to determine the closure depth based on the beach profile survey, there
are two widely used methods in which describe the profile measurement i.e standard
depth change method (SDDC) and fixed depth change method (FDC). The SDDC
method is useful in the sense that it avoids bias from outliers (Hinton and Nicholls,
1998). FDC method explained by Nicholls et.al (1996) tells that the closure depth where
the variation in depth between two profile surveys is equal or less than a pre-selected
criterion usually associated with the accuracy of the profile survey. The closure depth is
the absolute difference between the elevations of two consecutive surveys from the same
profile line. Therefore, if a survey method has an accuracy of 0.25 m, any absolute
change exceeding this limit value would be considered significant. In conventional
hydrographic survey using eco sounders and where convective algorithms have been
applied to account for heave and other boat movements, the accepted accuracy is
typically 30 cm (Ghazali, 2007).
24
Hinton and Nicholls (1998) used an FDC criterion of 0.25 m and 0.5 m and
found that since FDC captures the largest depth variation it generally gave the more
landward values of closure. Ghazali (2007) found that FDC method is the accurate
method in determining the closure depth for the beach fill design since it captures more
significant changes and regularly produces deeper closure depth than the SDDC method.
He also used an FDC criterion 0.3 m similar to the previous research that was conducted
by Nicholls et.al (1998).
2.3.2
Depth of Closure and Vertical Datum
The depth of closure is a water depth measured from some datum (for example,
Admiralty Chart Datum (ACD)). ACD is a reference datum used by navigators and
hydrographic surveyors (normally coincides with the lowest astronomical tide level.
Predictive equations for the depth of closure (Hellemeier, 1978,1981; Birkemeier, 1985)
employ the tidal datum mean low water (MLW) as a reference datum. Normally, beach
profile data are in LSD, whereas MLW refers to ACD. Thus, a conversion must be made
from ACD to LCD to obtain the tidal datum mean low water (MLW).
2.4
Previous Case Studies – Determination of Depth of Closure
Previous studies based on determination of the closure depth were discussed in
this chapter as the following. Two case studies from international experience and one
case study from local experience were discussed briefly in order to give a better
understanding and some basic information regarding the determination of depth of
closure. The case studies are presented as below.
25
2.4.1
Ocean City, Maryland
The beach fill design at Ocean City, Maryland, has been extensively examined in
the literature because considerable monitoring data are available for this site (Staubble et
al, 1992). During the particular stormy 3-1/2- year period from August 1988 to January
1992, data were compiled from near-shore wave gauge located at a depth of
approximately 10m. The wave height exceeded for 12 hour during the period was 9.8
ft(3m) with and associated wave period of 10.2 second (occurring during January 1992
storm). This value was substituted into equation 2.2 above, and gives Dc = 20.4 ft (6.2m)
from mean low water (MLW). The average of the significant wave heights measured at
the gauge during the period was 2.1 ft(0.6m) and again these values were substituted into
equation 2.2 and gives Dc = 18.7 ft(5.7m) from mean low water (MLW) level.
Staubble et al, (1992) determined the depth of closure at Ocean City over the
same period by examining profile survey data from 12 survey lines. Results of the
analysis indicated a depth of closure ranging from 16 to 22 ft (4.9 to 6.7 m) from NGVD
for individual profiles, with 20 ft (6.1 m) from NGVD being a representative value for
all profiles. Thus, equation 2.2 accurately predicts the upper bound of the measured
depth of closure for this data set.
2.4.2
Pria de Fero, Algarve, South Portugal
The study to determine the depth of closure variability through time as a function
of wave action has been done by Ferreira in year 1999. The location of study is at Pria de
Fero, Algarve, South Portugal. For that purpose, bathymetric surveys were made along 6
profiles, in average every two months, between August 2001 and May 2003. The depth
of closure was determined for all profiles between each two consecutive surveys by
morphological comparison. Tides are semi-diurnal with a maximum range of about 3.5
m. Dominant wave directions are from west to south west and wave energy can be
considered as moderate, with an average annual significant wave height (Hs=0.92 m).
26
Storm conditions (Hs > 3 m) do not exceed 2 % of the wave records, with recorded
values of Hs above 5 m being scarce (about 0.2 %). The beach can be considered
intermediated to reflective, with the beach face being composed by medium to coarse
sand.
The results showed that the observed depth of closure ranged from less than 2 m
to up to 11 m depth below mean sea level (MSL). The depth of closure clearly
demonstrates a variation through time in accordance with the wave energy distribution,
with changes being minimal during low-energy periods and the maximum values being
associated to high energy periods. For some periods, namely during summer, the closure
depth is located at the level of the lower low tides, indicating a small wave impact at the
sea floor. For the most of the year the depth of closure values are smaller than 6 m depth
below MSL, with the higher values for the depth of closure being episodic. The
threshold of significant wave height for inducing peaks of depth of closure was found to
be of about Hs > 4 m.
2.4.3
Kelantan Coast, Malaysia
Research conducted by Ghazali (2007) found that along the study shoreline at
Pantai Sabak, more than one closure point can occur across the same profile over the
seasonal and annual period. The study has examined the applicability of the Hallemeier
equation in predicting depth of closure for the coastline at Pantai Sabak, Kelantan using
nearshore waves which were transformed from offshore waves through numerical
modeling. The predicted depth of closure was compared against measured depth of
closure at 13 profiles that were surveyed in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2004. The widely
accepted Standard Deviation of Depth Change (SDDC) and Fixed Depth Change (FDC)
methods to determine Dc were both explored and the Dc for monsoon, annual and 5 year
events were investigated. He then, summarized that Hallemeier equation over predicts
annual depth of closure (Dc) by 43 % and affirms previous findings that the predictive
27
equation determines an upper limit value of Dc. Within the limitations of survey data
available, the annual depth of closure at Pantai Sabak can be equated to 1.5 times H0.137.
2.5
Equilibrium Beach Profile
Since the beginning of the 20th century similarities observed in cross-shore
profiles suggest the equilibrium concept in certain beach conditions. The beach profile is
the variation of water depth with distance offshore from the shoreline. The equilibrium
profile is conceptually the result of the balance of destructive versus constructive forces
(Dean and Dalrymple, 2002). Though an equilibrium beach profile is unlikely outside of
a laboratory, due to the continuous changes in the factors affecting the forces, the study
of equilibrium beach profiles is important. It aids in the understanding of beach profiles
in general and beach responses to changes in the dominant forces such as increases in
sea level or storms.
Studies of equilibrium beach profiles lead to better predictions, knowledge of
beach profiles that are not currently in equilibrium and conditions that have caused the
current profile of to obtain its state. Equilibrium beach profiles are also important to
beach fill designs and coastal management, in predicting how beach nourishment
designs will respond after they have been applied and in predicting the type of beach
nourishment design that will fare best for conditions at the specified location. In nature,
the equilibrium profile is considered to be a dynamic concept, for the incident wave
field and water level change continuously in nature; therefore, the profile respond
continuously. By averaging these profiles over a long period, a mean equilibrium can be
defined.
28
There has been a long interest in equilibrium beach profiles. Bruun (1954)
examined profiles from Denmark and Monterey Bay, CA and proposed the following;
h(y) = Ay2/3
(2.6)
where;
h = water depth at distance y from the shoreline; and
A= profile scale parameter with dimensions of length to the 1/3 power.
The profile scale factor was later found to be dependent on sediment size. (Dean,
2002). This came from the assumption that turbulence in the surf zone was the dominant
destructive force and the relationship between sediment size and the level of wave
energy dissipation per unit water necessary for sediment transport (Dean, 1993). For this
reason the Bruun model is commonly called the dissipation model. This relationship was
later converted to an A vs. w relationship, where w is the fall velocity of the sediment
(Dean, 1993).
One downfall of the dissipation model is that it predicts an unrealistic vertical
slope at the shoreline. To fix this anomaly a new model was developed by Larson, in
1988 that included gravity as a destructive force for a very small region near the
shoreline (Komar 1998), this model will then be referred to as the gravity model. The
resulting equation is
y = h/m + h(3/2)/A(3/2)
(2.7)
where;
y = Equilibrium beach profile;
m = the fore shore slope of the beach profile, which is calculated using measured
profile data;
29
h = water depth at distance y from the shoreline; and
A= profile scale parameter with dimensions of length to the 1/3 power.
In this turbulence model (represented by the 2nd term on the right side) remains
the dominant destructive force except when the profile reaches shallow water. At that
point the gravity term becomes the dominant destructive force. Current research in the
field of equilibrium beach profiles has focused in areas of the parameters, A and m, and
their sensitivities, the applicability of the equilibrium beach profile models both to beach
nourishment design and to varying forcing conditions and beaches. For example
Houston developed a simpler approach of designing beach – fill design that utilizes the
dissipation equation. Dean had previously studied methods of using the equilibrium
profile with sediment data to develop beach designs. In another study Larson et al,
(1999) attempted to extend the applicability of equilibrium profiles to include profiles
under breaking and non – breaking waves.
30
PART B: PRESSURE EQUALIZATION MODULE (PEM) SYSTEM
2.6
Pressure Equalization Module (PEM) System Application Concept
A method of beach protection based on Pressure Equalization Modules (PEM)
system has been developed by Mr Poul Jakobsen representing Skagen Innovation Centre
(SIC) in Denmark. SIC claims that the system works by equalizing the ground water
pressure present inside the beach. During his work he developed the following theory (in
short):- The pressure equalization modules increase the drop of the water level in the
coastal profile in the period from high tide to low tide. Thus, the beach will be more
effectively drained of water (see Figure 2.3). When the water level is low on the coast
during the period from low tide to high tide, the water circulation in the swash zone
increases, which again increases the depositing of materials on the foreshore, thereby
building up the beach from the sediments transported along the coast. (Skagen
Innovation Centre, 2000).
Figure 2.3: Pressure Equalization Modules – schematization
(Courtesy of Eco Shore International, (2006))
31
It has surprisingly been found by the inventor that positioning of pressure
equalization modules in the beach results in sedimentation of material at the area where
the modules are placed. A possible explanation as to why coastal accretion takes place is
that the very fine sand which is fed to the profile partly by the sea and partly by the wind
and which is packed with silt and other clay particles, reduces the hydraulic
conductivity. Deeper layers in the coastal profile, which have exclusively been built by
the waves of the sea, are primarily coarse in the form of gravel and pebbles which have a
greater hydraulic conductivity. The difference in hydraulic conductivity will be seen
clearly when digging into a coastal profile, it being possible to dig a hole in the profile,
and the groundwater will then rise up into the profile once the water table is reached.
The reason is the very different hydraulic conductivity and that the freshwater is under
pressure from the hinterland. Thus, the coastal profile may be compared to a
downwardly open tank where the tank is opened at the top with the pressure equalization
modules which extend through the compact layers of the profile so that the water runs
more easily and thereby more quickly out of the profile in the period from flood to ebb.
This means that a pressure equalized profile is better emptied of freshwater and salt
water in the fall period of the tide. When the tide then rises from ebb to flood, a greater
fluctuation occurs in the foreshore, as the salt water in the swash zone is drained in the
swash zone so that materials settle in the foreshore during this period of time (see Figure
2.4). Conversely, coastal erosion takes place if the freshwater is under pressure in the
foreshore, as the salt water will then run back into the sea on top of the freshwater and
thereby erode the foreshore. In reality, the pressure equalization modules start a process
which spreads from the pressure equalization modules, as the silt and clay particles are
flushed out of the foreshore when the fluctuation is increased because of the draining
action of the modules. Further, a clear connection has been found between the amount of
sediment transport on the coast and the rate of the coastal accretion. It has been found
that the pressure equalization modules create a natural equilibrium profile with a system
of about 1:20, so that the waves run up on the beach and leave material, as water in
motion can carry large amounts of material which settle when the velocity of the water
decreases.
32
Seepage Area
High tide
Low tide
Sea
Salt Water Tongue
Figure 2.4: PEM Function Dewatering the Beach
(Courtesy of Eco Shore International, (2006))
2.6.1
The Advantages of PEM System
SIC claims that, there are several advantages that can be drawn due to pressure
equalization module system.
(e)
By using this Pressure Equalization Module System, the water table will
drop and therefore enhance infiltration and sediment deposition.
(f)
The average beach level is raised in the PEM areas.
(g)
The accumulation of sand at the PEM areas is higher compare to the area
without installation of PEM system.
33
(h)
Coastal profiles with pressure equalization modules naturally become very
wide, which results in a very good great sand drift on the foreshore.
(i)
The PEM system will create minimal disruption to the shoreline both in the
physical and ecological sense.
2.7
Design Criteria of Pressure Equalization Modules System at Teluk
Cempedak Beach, Kuantan
The Pressure Equalization Module (PEM) system is a relatively new system
currently being tested in Kuantan, Pahang. This is the first coastal erosion project
applying this method in Malaysia and Asia which costs RM15, 400,000.00 (Annual
Report DID, 2004). The PEM functions in the up rush zone of the beach where wave
runs up the beach face and, upon reaching its limit, runs down and at the same time
infiltrates into the bed.
The infiltration of seawater into the bed is limited by the existing level of
groundwater. Hence, if the groundwater can be lowered, more water from the run-up can
percolate into the bed and less will run down the surface dragging sediments with the
flow. The lowering of the local groundwater table can be achieved with the PEM system
which relieves the pressure within the beach by physically „connecting‟ it with the
atmosphere. In summary, the PEM increases vertical infiltration of up rush in the swash
zone.
Rows of perforated PVC pipes about 15 cm in diameter are installed normal to
the shoreline in the area between the upper shore limit of the swash zone (area
34
influenced by wave run-up) and the mean low water line. The pipes behave as a vertical
filter which equalizes groundwater pressure within the beach allowing increased
circulation of seawater within the beach profile. The PEM pipe design is illustrated in
Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5: Design of Pressure Equalization Module Pipes
(Courtesy of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia (2006))
Each vertical PEM pipe is 2.0 m long with perforations measuring 400 to 900
microns (1 micron = 0.001 mm) and are placed vertically into the beach with the bottom
end penetrating the phreatic line. The pipe wall thickness is 3 mm. Each section shall be
30 cm long and consist of horizontal arc slots cut into the pipe 1 mm apart, each arc slot
with a length of 90o and width of not more than 0.2 mm. The distance between each
section shall be 10 cm. First section shall start 75 cm below top of pipe as shown in
Figure 2.5 above. The top of the pipe are closed with a plastic cap with filter, and
35
covered with sand so that they do not present obstacles to users of the beach. The cap
made of PVC 2-3 mm thickness and of an easily observable colour (red or green).
Any water pressure build-up within the beach will be transferred into the pipes.
The PEM system is suited for littoral coastlines with a natural supply of sand from the
coast. In cases where the natural sand supply has been depleted, beach nourishment is
necessary. The presence of the PEM system causes the beach to retain more material on
the foreshore area (between the low water line and the high water line) and form a more
erosion-resistant beach. Its immediate affect will be in lowering the sediment transport
capacity of wave down-rush. In the medium term, the shoreline undergoes a change
whereby sediment mounds will form normal to the shore along the position of the PEM
pipes. These then behave like groins and trap sediment movement in the alongshore
direction (Jakobsen, 2002). With a more erosion-resistant beach, a beach nourishment
replenishment interval is expected to increase. Another notable benefit is that the PEM
system creates minimal disruption to the shoreline both in the physical and ecological
sense. The construction phase of a PEM project, unless beach nourishment is required,
uses very little machinery causing minimal disturbance to beach activities (Ghazali,
2005).
2.7.1
System Installation
Due to lack of sediment transport along the coast of Teluk Cempedak, sand
nourishment is required for the application of PEM system to rehabilitate the beach. In
the case where PEM system will function to reduce the erosion rate of the sand
nourishment, the sand nourishment would be designed to follow the estimated
equilibrium profile for the design PEM. Installation of PEM system is generally done in
two steps. The first set of pipes will be installed in a 100 m x 100 m matrix to drain the
36
beach and facilitate sand nourishment while the next will be the offset PEM system
whereby involve the installation of another set of pipes after the sand nourishment
process has been completed.:-
(a)
First Set - Installation of the Basic PEM system to drain the existing beach and
prepare for sand nourishment. Vertical pipe 2 m long drainpipes are located in
100 m x 100 m matrix ( 11 columns and 5 rows) reaching from the surface of the
beach to the groundwater table. Total number of drainpipes is 55 nos. The effect
of the Basic installation is to initially increase the drainage capacity of the active
zone, and secondly transport silt away from the beach thus accelerating further
the drainage capacity.
(b)
Second Set - Installation of the Off-set PEM system after sand nourishment.
Vertical pipe 2 m long drainpipes are located in 100 m x 100 m matrix, ( 11
columns and 5 rows) however, shifted 20 m in the along-shore direction. Total
number of drainpipes is 55 nos. The experience from previous installation is that
the cross-shore sand tongue develops in front of each of the rows of PEM
modules. These sand tongues essentially have some effect as groynes arresting
some of the sand transported with the long-shore currents thus building up sand
between the rows.
The total number of drainpipes needed is 110 nos. Figure 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9
shows the preparation of PEM pipe installation at Teluk Cempedak beach during the
construction stage in July 2004.
37
Figure 2.6: Preparation for PEM Installation on 9th July 2004
(Courtesy of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia (2004))
Figure 2.7: Preparation of borehole for PEM Installation on 9th July 2004
(Courtesy of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia (2004))
38
Figure 2.8: Placement of PEM pipe
(Courtesy of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia (2004))
Figure 2.9: Exposed PEM Pipe at Chainage 800
(Courtesy of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia (2004))
39
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
A research methodology defines what the activity of research is, how to proceed,
how to measure progress, and what constitutes success. This chapter is focused on how
to determine the depth of closure by using analytical method before and after the
installation of PEM system. The estimations of depth of closure are discussed in order to
clarify the specific objective of this study. Data required for this study was also
discussed in this chapter. After the implementation of methodology, data collection and
analysis will be subsequently conducted to obtain the end results.
40
3.2
Study Area
The location of this study is at Teluk Cempedak on the East Coast of Peninsular
Malaysia near the town of Kuantan (see Figure 3.1). Teluk Cempedak is placed in a
pocket bay at the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia. The beach is located in front of
Hyatt- and Sheraton Hotel and has a total length of 1100 meters (1.1 km).The beach is a
type of sandy beach and can be classified as a dissipative beach where all the arriving
wave energy is dissipated on the near-shore. The waves also break by spilling. The
beach slope is physically fairly uniform and gentle. As the beach is dissipative, the
longshore currents and longshore transport occur throughout along a smoother crossshore profile. A dissipative beach profile is more conducive for infra gravity edge waves
which have low frequency (T= 30 s - 120 s), where energy concentrated on upper beach
profile to result in increased erosion and sediment transport. Figure 3.2, Figure 3.3 and
Figure 3.4 (a) and (b) shows the physical condition at the Teluk Cempedak beach.
Location of study
area:Teluk Cempedak
Beach, Kuantan
Figure 3.1: Site Study Area
41
Figure 3.2: The Beach Slope is Steeper due to Erosion Problem
(Courtesy of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia (2003))
Figure 3.3: The Beach is Narrower and Recreational Activities are
Limited for Beach Visitor
(Courtesy of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia (2003))
42
Figure 3.4(a): Beach Condition before the Installation of PEM System
(Courtesy of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia (2003))
Figure 3.4 (b): Beach Condition after the Installation of PEM System
(Courtesy of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia (2007))
43
3.3
Data Set
Data collection is very important in this study. Data sets obtained for this
study comprise the following:(a) beach profile survey data;
(b) wind and wave data;
(c) tidal data; and
(d) bed sediment data.
3.3.1
Beach Profile Survey
For the purpose of this research, beach profile survey data was obtained from
Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) Malaysia which include pre and post
installation of PEM system and this exercise would be critical to the accuracy of
depth of closure estimates. Prior to analysis, cross-shore profiles that best represent
the study shoreline has been determined. Four year survey data is used to analyze the
depth of closure. Data obtained for year 2003 represent the pre installation of PEM
while data for year 2005 until 2007 represent for the post installation of PEM
system. The surveys consist of 14 chainage (CH) lines where CH 100 to CH 300 and
CH1400 are not installed with PEM pipe while CH 400 to CH 1300 is installed with
the PEM pipe. Beach nourishment was also applied between CH 400 to CH 1300.
44
3.3.2
Wind and Wave Data
The data set also includes atmospheric wind data. Local wind data is
available within the Malaysian Meteorological Department (MMD) where the
nearest recording station to the study site is at Kuantan Airport. In the two monsoon
periods the dominating wind directions are north / northeast in the North East
monsoon and southwest/south/southeast in the South West monsoon. The highest
wind speed was recorded on December with wind speed higher than 8 m/s.
For wave analysis, wave data of 20 years or more is obtained from the
information of Synoptic Shipboard Meteorological Observation Data (SSMO) of
waves off the East Coast. For Kuantan area, SSMO data are available from 1949 to
1989, a period of 40 years. The main Marsden Square Number used to determine the
significant wave height is 2633, 2634, 2635, 2643, 2644, and 2645. Statistical
analyses of distribution of wave height and wave period were conducted in this
study. Results obtained from numerical modeling conducted by MRCB, Malaysia
shows that the shoreline at Teluk Cempedak is orientated 355o according to north,
which exposes the most of the beach for waves coming from the main direction in
the north east monsoon period (55o).
3.3.3
Tidal Data
Tidal information is necessary to determine the local tidal regime. Predicted
tidal heights are obtainable from the Royal Malaysian Navy Tide Tables and the
Malaysia Survey and Mapping Department Tide Table. The nearest standard port to
45
the study is at Tanjung Gelang. The tidal level recorded within this area is ranged
from 2.13 m to 3.05 m. (Malaysian Resource Corporation Berhad (MRCB), 2006)
and the type of tide is diurnal.
3.3.4
Bed Sediment Data
Sampling is needed to determine sediment characteristics, such as median
grain size and grain-size distribution, which affect the beach profile shape and
influence, fill volume requirements. The data for sediment is also required to
determine the depth of closure. Significant changes in sediment type, size and colour
at a particular nearshore location over time infers that the depth of closure is further
seaward. Sediment sampling is of particular importance when fill and native material
have different characteristics. Sediment samples were collected at selected locations
within the project area to account for longshore and cross-shore variability in
sediment characteristics. Figure 3.5 shows the location of collected sediment
samples and location of the sand source. For this study site area, it is found that there
is no sediment input from the sea into the pocket bay (MRCB, 2006). Therefore, due
to lack of sediment transported on the alongshore at Teluk Cempedak beach, beach
nourishment is required. For this purpose, borrow sand was mined from the seabed
offshore where the sand source is located about 5 km from the shoreline and at water
depth of approximately 14 m as shown in Figure 3.5.
46
Sungai
Cempedak
Sediment
Samples
Sand Source
Figure 3.5: Location of Sediment Samples and Sand Source.
47
3.4
Measurement Techniques
3.4.1
Beach Profile Measurement
Beach profiles vary with time, both seasonally as the wave climate changes
and over the long term, in response to the pressures of erosion and accretion. Beach
profiles measured at the same location over time can provide details about the
behavior of the beach. By taking a series of profiles along a beach and then repeating
the profile measurements at later times, the behavior of the entire beach can be
examined in terms of shoreline recession and volumetric loss; moreover, an overall
sand budget (sources and sinks of sand) can be determined.
For inshore survey, the directions of the profiles are determined and are
usually oriented perpendicular to the shoreline trend. These directions are then
indicated through the use of pair of ranges pole or a surveyor with a theodolite to
keep the surveyors on line. Using standard land surveying equipment, the surveyor
determines the elevations of the dry beach along the profile line. This surveying is
usually done during the low tide.
The offshore portion of the profile is obtained using a survey vessel equipped
with a fathometer and positioning system so that the position of the boat can be
correlated with the depth measurements. The boat is kept on the profile line by the
visual profile markers (the range poles), by radio, or more accurately by modern
electronic distance measuring (EDM) equipment, or laser (Dean and Dalrymple,
2002). The offshore survey is usually taken out to a depth exceeding the depth of
closure. This depth is chosen because it is the depth beyond which there is normally
48
no change in the profile with time. Always taking profile as far offshore as the depth
of closure will make it likely that all the profiles taken along the same line will reach
the same depth at the same distance offshore.
3.4.2
Historical Shoreline Changes
Long term shoreline change rates can be determined from historical data at a
given site. The types of data available are charts or maps and aerial photographs.
The charts and photographs provide an historical record of shoreline position.
Typically these historical positions, corrected to a common datum, are used to create
an overlay of shorelines, and the shoreline changes with time are then determined.
Usually, the oldest available data are historical navigation charts.
Topographic maps, Admiralty Charts, National Ocean Survey (NOS) bathymetric
surveys, and local, state, or university surveys made at different time can be utilized.
These maps have limitations, however, because, for example, the U.S Geological
Survey Quadrangles (USGS) maps are designed for upland use and the shorelines
are usually obtained from aerial photographs (Dean & Darymple, 2002).
The difficulty with these data is accuracy. The oldest maps suffer from
positional inaccuracy as well as vertical elevation inaccuracy. However, these old
maps provide an historical reference that may overshadow uncertainties about their
accuracy. More recently, the chart accuracy is limited owing primarily to the
different vertical datum that is used. For bathymetric maps, the mean low water and
the mean sea level are used. The shoreline position is different for each one. Recent
49
chart sometimes represent a compilation of historical sounding and shoreline data
rather than a complete new survey. This can lead to errors where the bathymetry has
changed over time.
3.4.3
Tidal Data Measurement
Hydrographic surveys are usually done with one boat, and thus considerable
time is required for the survey to be completed. For tidal bodies of water, because
the sounding depths are relative to the water levels at the time of sounding, a tide
gauge system must be used to determine the water level associated with each profile.
In all situations, tidal and non tidal, the water level with respect to a known datum is
necessary to convert depths measured with the fathometer to the elevations used on
the beach profiles (Dean and Dalrymple, 2002).
3.4.4
Aerial Photograph
Aerial photographs are much more qualitative than profile or other surveys,
yet can be useful in providing an overall indication of project performance especially
the dry beach remaining, an important measure to the layperson. High quality aerial
photographs taken at low tide can provide the basis for approximate measurements
of dry beach width (Dean, 2002).
50
3.5
Data Analysis
3.5.1
Determination of Depth of Closure from Beach Data Profile
A series of monitoring survey has been conducted by Jurukur Perunding
Services Sdn. Bhd and therefore become the primary data set in this study. Graphical
analyses of beach profiles were conducted to determine the profile characteristic,
envelope of changes and trends of bar migration. Standard spreadsheet program such
as Microsoft Excel was used to tabulate profile measurement data and to calculate
variations in the depth leading to the determination of the seaward limit of
significant change in elevation.
Based on the data sets, investigation of depth of closure will be conducted
before and after the installation of PEM system. Data sets are expected to reveal the
effect of an erosional event on the depth of closure. Depths of closure from surveys
are determined from the FDC method. When the FDC plot down crosses and remain
below the limit line i.e 0.25 m, the first point after the down-cross is deemed as the
depth of closure. The flowchart represents in Figure 3.6 below shows the algorithm
to determine the closure depth from profile survey based of research conducted by
Ghazali (2007).
51
START
Plot bed elevation
x-axis: distance shoreward
y-axis: bed elevation
Plot FDC line (A)
x-axis: distance shoreward
y-axis: bed elevation
Plot FDC criteria line (B)
Determine Fixed Depth
Change (FDC)
Determine opening and
closing point
At shoreline, 0 m LSD
NO
NO
If A above B
first point where
A down-crosses
B = closure
point
YES
If A below B
FDC line upcrosses B =
opening point
YES
From a closure point and continuing seawards, the
point when A next up-crosses B is recorded as
reopening point.
x
52
x
Identify Morphological Zones
Closure zone
A down-crosses and remain below the B
Reopening zones
A up-crosses and down-crosses the B alternately along the
profile.
Multiple Closure Point
hci = for the starting point of the first closure zone that occurs (expected
at inner-shore)
hcm = for the starting point of a subsequent closure point that occurs
seawards of hci. (expected at middle-shore)
hco= for the starting of the closure zone occurring in the outer-shore and
seawards of hcm.
Determine effective Dc for beach fill design
A clear tailing-off of the A below the B. A tailing-off zone (closure
zone) occurring between two zones of significant bed elevation change.
END
Figure 3.6: The Algorithm of Closure Depth Determination
53
3.5.2
Determination of Depth of Closure from Empirical Formula
In order to make a comparison to the results obtained from the beach data profile
survey, determination of the depth of closure using empirical formula is applicable for
this study. Therefore, analytical method by using Hallemeier equation is proposed to
fulfil the specific objective of this study. Equations 2.2 and 2.5 are recommended as the
primary calculation method for estimating the depth of closure because they provide a
more conservative estimate for design. A new equation for determination of closure
depth was obtained in this study in combination with PEM system and beach
nourishment. Thus, this predictive equation may be applied for any location along the
east coast of Malaysia whereby the installation of PEM and beach nourishment is needed
but to a similar wave climate and beach condition.
3.6
PEM Effectiveness Evaluation
In order to meet the second objective of this study, PEM effectiveness evaluation
was carried out. The evaluation procedure and methodology rests on a number of
essential definitions. These definitions are described as follows:-
(a)
Total Sand Volume
Total sand volume is determined by multiplying the beach level for each
chainage with the beach width. The beach width in this study was set to 70 meter wide
from the shoreline towards the sea.
54
(b)
Average Beach Level
The average beach level is calculated as the sum of the level of each transect over
the beach length divided by the number of transect. The beach level was determined for
each chainage line in order to obtain the variation in depth. The width of the beach is
defined as the distance from the retaining wall to the mean high water level (MHWL).
(c)
PEM Efficiency
PEM Efficiency was determined in terms of bed elevation. In order to implement
this, the widely used equation to determine the efficiency has been applied as mentioned
in section 4.16.4.
55
START
Define objective and scope of study
Literature Review/Previous Study
Concept of beach nourishment, closure depth, beach equilibrium profile and
PEM system approach.
Data Collection
1. Profile data survey.
2. Wind and Wave data.
3. Tidal data.
4. Bed sediment data.
Data will be obtained (before and after installation of
PEM) from MRCB, licensed consultant company
commisioned by DID, Malaysia.
Compilation, Plotting, Comparing Data Series
Data that obtained from the local authority is
normally in a form of raw data. The compilation,
plotting and comparing of data should be done in
order to get the best set of data.
NO
Data Analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
Profile data survey analysis.
Wave data analysis-Offshore wave height and
wave period.
Computation of closure depth using Hallemeier
Equation.
PEM effectiveness evaluation.
YES
Results and Discussions
Conclusion and Recommendations
END
Figure 3.7: Research Methodology Chart
56
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1
Introduction
In this study, the data comprising of hydrographic survey, meteorological and
oceanographic data, as well as sediment data were compiled in order to determine the
depth of closure for each chainage. Four year records of hydrographic survey were used
in this study which includes the beach profile surveys from year 2003 until year 2007.
All surveys were conducted by licensed surveyors and hydrographers appointed by the
Coastal Engineering Division, Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia. These
surveys were classified by two different periods, i.e before the installation of PEM
57
system (2003) and after the installation of PEM system (2005 to 2007). This chapter
describes the details of the study area, results of the wave data analysis, tidal
information, sediment properties, and determination of the depth of closure from profile
surveys as well as determination of closure depth from empirical equation.
4.2
Description of Study Area
The study area is located at Teluk Cempedak, Kuantan. Teluk Cempedak beach
is located at the east of Kuantan town. It is a pocket beach between the granite headlands
of Tanjung Pelindung Tengah and Tanjung Tembeling, with Cempedak River draining
into the northern end of the bay. This river drains Bukit Pelindung and discharges some
sediment and moderately polluted water from developed areas within its catchment. The
bay has been fully developed for public recreation as well as for local and international
tourism. The public recreational areas occupy the northern part of the beach and
Sheraton and Hyatt Hotels on the southern part. The beach is about 1.1 km long, swash
aligned and reflective. Beach morphology and undisturbed areas show two levels of
beach cusp due to the difference in sea level and wave energy of the two monsoons. The
sands are yellowish and course-grained, reflecting the nearby source of alongshore sands
from the eroding headlands. The stretch of beach has a narrow and steep near-shore as a
result of steady erosion over the years. The steep nearshore area is also prone to high
wave activity that results in strong near-shore currents which may endanger swimmers.
Although the National Coastal Erosion Study of 1985 classified this beach as stable, the
recent Shoreline Management Plan of the coastline from Kuala Sg.Pahang to the State
Boundary of Pahang/Terengganu (DID Malaysia, 2001) found that this coastline is
eroding at an estimated rate of 0.8m/year.
58
4.3
Data Set
The available data obtained in this study is as follows:-
Table 4.1: Data Available for This Study
Type of Data
Sources
Hydrographic Survey
9th Monitoring Survey Drawing of Projek
Perintis Pemulihan Pantai Pelancongan
dengan Menggunakan “Pressure
Equalization Module System” di Teluk
Cempedak, Kuantan , Pahang Darul
Makmur.
- Survey Report No. 647/2007.
Waves Data
Summary of SSMO data (1949 -1985).
- Obtained from Head Quarters of
Department of Irrigation and Drainage
Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Tidal Information
Tide Table 2003 published by the Royal
Malaysia Navy for Tg. Gelang Station,
Kuantan
Sediment Properties
Detailed Design Report of Projek Perintis
Pemulihan Pantai Pelancongan dengan
Menggunakan “Pressure Equalization
Module System” di Teluk Cempedak,
Kuantan , Pahang Darul Makmur.
59
4.3.1
Beach Profile Survey
Hydrographic survey is very important in this study to capture the changes of the
nearshore profile when erosion is expected to occur. Four years record of hydrographic
survey was obtained in this study. The surveys were undertaken using the conventional
survey technique i.e profile measurements were taken using a combination of land-based
topographical survey and hydrographic survey techniques. Hydrographic surveys were
measured in the convention of m CD but converted to m LSD for civil engineering and
construction drawing purpose. The cross-shore plotting covering from the landward
property boundary to about 30 m seawards below the L.A.T.
The surveys were conducted for 18 chainage lines starting from chainage 100 m
to chainage 1800 m. Nevertheless, only 14 monitoring surveys sections were used in this
study which includes the area where the PEM system was installed as shown in Figure
4.1. The area of interest starts from chainage 100 in the north to chainage 1400 m in the
south direction. The PEM pipe was successfully installed within CH 300 until CH 1300,
while CH 100 to CH 300 and CH 1400 are the boundaries of the study area, representing
the north and south boundary respectively. In order to determine the variation of depth
towards the sea, the depth was captured for each 10 meter interval distance ending at
1250 m seaward. Table 4.2(a) and Table 4.2(b) shows the centerline coordinate points of
the selected survey datasets and its corresponding depth at profile end before and after
the installation of PEM system respectively.
60
Figure 4.1: Profile Line at Study Area
61
Table 4.2(a): Center line Coordinates of Selected Survey Data set and Its Corresponding
Depth (Before Installation of PEM System)
Center line Coordinates
No.
Chainage
Northing
Easting
1
CH100
11767.00
104137.00
2
CH200
11667.00
104137.00
3
CH300
11567.00
104137.00
4
CH400
11467.00
104137.00
5
CH500
11367.00
104137.00
6
CH600
11267.00
104137.00
7
CH700
11167.00
104137.00
8
CH800
11067.00
104137.00
9
CH900
10967.00
104137.00
10
CH1000
10867.00
104137.00
11
CH1100
10767.00
104137.00
12
CH1200
10667.00
104137.00
13
CH1300
10567.00
104137.00
14
CH1400
10467.00
104137.00
1. CH 100, CH200, CH300 & CH 1400 = NO PEM
2. CH 300 to CH 1300 = PEM and Beach Nourishment
Depth at Profile End
(m)
2003
-9.00
-9.15
-9.35
-9.40
-9.45
-9.65
-9.55
-9.75
-9.80
-9.75
-9.90
-10.10
-10.25
-10.40
Table 4.2(b): Center line Coordinates of Selected Survey Dataset and Its Corresponding
Depth (After Installation of PEM System)
Center line Coordinates
No.
Chainage
Northing
Easting
1
CH100
11767.00
104137.00
2
CH200
11667.00
104137.00
3
CH300
11567.00
104137.00
4
CH400
11467.00
104137.00
5
CH500
11367.00
104137.00
6
CH600
11267.00
104137.00
7
CH700
11167.00
104137.00
8
CH800
11067.00
104137.00
9
CH900
10967.00
104137.00
10
CH1000
10867.00
104137.00
11
CH1100
10767.00
104137.00
12
CH1200
10667.00
104137.00
13
CH1300
10567.00
104137.00
14
CH1400
10467.00
104137.00
1. CH 100, CH200, CH300 & CH 1400 = NO PEM
2. CH 300 to CH 1300 = PEM and Beach Nourishment
Depth at Profile End
(m)
2005
2006
2007
-9.65
-9.40
-9.40
-9.65
-9.70
-9.50
-9.75
-9.75
-9.60
-9.80
-9.75
-9.80
-10.00
-9.75
-9.85
-9.90
-9.75
-9.70
-10.00
-9.90
-9.50
-10.10
-10.05
-9.75
-10.25
-10.25
-9.80
-10.40
-10.05
-9.95
-10.45
-10.25
-10.05
-10.55
-10.30
-10.25
-10.60
-10.55
-10.45
-10.65
-10.50
-10.45
62
4.3.2
Wave Data Analysis
For Kuantan coast, the only wave data of 20 years or more is obtained from the
information of Synoptic Shipboard Meteorological Observation Data (SSMO) of waves
off the East Coast. SSMO data are available from 1949 to 1989, a period of 40 years.
The main Marsden Square Number used to determine the significant wave height is
2633, 2634, 2635, 2643, 2644, and 2645. The SSMO wave data were used to generate
the annual wave and seasonal wave roses as well as for the frequency analysis of
exceedance and obtained design waves such as Hs, H 0.137, and etc. In this study, wave
data analysis was carried out to determine the effective significant wave height, He, as
that which is exceeded only twelve hours per year or only 0.137 % of the time. The
SSMO information on waves is obtained from the Coastal Engineering Division of the
Malaysia Drainage and Irrigation Department. Figure 4.2 shows the histogram of wave
height at the study area. The maximum wave height is recorded as 6 meter while the
highest frequency of the wave height occurring is 1.0 m. The dominant wave heights are
in the range of 1.0 m to 1.5 m.
Histogram Wave Height
3000
2669
2500
Frequency, N
2000
1427
1500
1000
527
500
292
186
56
21
8
2
1
6
1
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Wave Height,m
Wave Height
Figure 4.2: Histogram of Design Wave Height
63
The calculation of depth of closure using Hellemeier‟s equation required the
significant wave height exceeded 12 hour in a year equivalent to an exceedance
probability of 0.137 %. This wave height is determined from a plot of cumulative
percentage against wave height as illustrated in Figure 4.3. It can be seen that, the
H 0.137 wave was determined to be 3.53 m with a corresponding wave period of 7.85 sec.
The corresponding wave period is determined based on the regression analysis as shown
in Figure 4.4. Linear relationship between both parameters shows that greater wave
height leads to higher wave period. Similarly, based on the analysis using LEO data
(DID‟s LEO Station C01, Beserah Kuantan), the value of H 0.137 wave is found to be in
the region of 3.5 m too.
Wave Height (m) vs % of Exceedance
100.00
90.00
80.00
% of Exceedance
70.00
60.00
H 0.137 = 3.53 m
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Wave Height, H (m)
Wave Height
Figure 4.3: H 0.137 Wave from SSMO Wave Data (1949-1983)
7.0
64
Relationship between Wave Height (m) and Wave Period (sec)
15
14
13
y = 0.242x + 6.994
12
11
Wave Period, sec
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Wave Height, m
Figure 4.4: Relationship between Wave Height and Wave Period
4.3.3
Tidal Height Information
Principal tidal levels information such as MHHW, MSL and MLLW are used in
the design of the sand nourishment especially in conjunction with PEM system. Tidal
information from the Tide Tables published by the Royal Malaysia Navy for Kuantan
naval base in 2003 are used for determining the full range and magnitude of tidal
variation in the study area. Tidal information is necessary to determine the vertical
references of depth. Hallemeier (1981) suggested that the MLW level is important
because it is the reference to depth of closure in the original definition. Table 4.3 shows
the tide level along the study shoreline recorded in year 2003. The mean low water level
65
is determine based on the average of mean higher low water (MHLW) level and mean
lower low water (MLLW) level. Therefore, based on tide level at Tg. Gelang station, the
MLW level for the year 2003 is recorded as -0.66 m.
Table 4.3: Tidal Level at Tanjung Gelang Station (m, LSD)
Tidal Level
Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT)
Mean Higher High Water (MHHW)
Mean Higher Low Water (MHLW)
Mean Sea Level (MSL)
Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)
Mean Lower High Water (MLHW)
Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT)
4.3.4
2003
2.18
1.65
-0.14
0.24
-1.17
0.61
-1.72
Sediment Properties
Sampling is needed to determine sediment characteristics, such as median grain
size and grain-size distribution, which affect the beach profile shape and influence, and
fill volume requirements. The data for sediment is also required to determine the depth
of closure. Significant changes in sediment type, size and colour at a particular nearshore location over time infers that the depth of closure is further seaward. Sediments
and laboratory analysis of samples of the beach face above MSL and of the seabed
below MSL are the most essential for the sand nourishment design. Both the locations of
the public beach area and that in front of the hotel resorts are also required and
measured. The sampling and analysis of the sediments are further divided into upper and
lower limits of cross-shore profile as well as according to spring and neap tide situation.
The beach nourishment region is within Chainage 400 m to Chainage 1300 m whereby
the area had been installed with the PEM system.
66
As for this study, due to lack of sediments transport along the coast of Teluk
Cempedak, sand nourishment is required for the application of PEM system to
rehabilitate the beach. In this case, the PEM system will function to reduce the erosion
rate of the sand nourishment. Accordingly, it is required that the sand nourishment be
placed directly at the required location starting from the dune face and on the whole
beach slope.
Figure 4.5 shows the location of the design size sand that had been placed along
the beach. Detail about the design sand size is described in Table 4.4. The median sand
size (D50) ranged from 0.280 mm to 0.820 mm for lower beach and upper beach face
respectively from CH 375 to CH 600 and CH 1100 to CH1350. Similarly, from CH 600
to CH 1100, the median sand size (D50) ranged from 0.330 mm to 1.000 mm for lower
beach and upper beach face respectively.
Table 4.5(a) and Table 4.5(b) show the results of the sand size analysis at the
study area for pre-project condition. Based on the available sediment data in this study, it
is found that the sand size for pre-project condition ranged from 1.483 mm to 0.969 mm
for both locations i.e public beach and hotel beach above the MSL level in which
describe the type of the sand is coarser. In contrast, the finer sand could be found at the
locations which fall in the range of 0.948 mm to 0.842 mm below the MSL level. This
trend typically explains that beach sediments are expected to be naturally sorted with the
coarser sediments being deposited on the upper part of the beach while finer sediments
get deposited further seawards.
67
Upper Beach Face
Lower Beach Face
D50 = 0.820 mm
D50 = 0.280 mm
D50 = 0.820 mm
D50 = 0.280 mm
D50 = 0.820 mm
D50 = 0.280 mm
D50 = 1.000 mm
D50 = 0.330 mm
D50 = 1.000 mm
D50 = 0.330 mm
D50 = 1.000 mm
D50 = 0.330 mm
D50 = 1.000 mm
D50 = 0.330 mm
D50 = 1.000 mm
D50 = 0.330 mm
D50 = 0.820 mm
D50 = 0.280 mm
D50 = 0.820 mm
D50 = 0.280 mm
D50 = 0.820 mm
D50 = 0.280 mm
CH 100
CH 200
CH 300
CH 400
CH 500
Hyaat
Hotel
CH 600
CH 700
CH 800
Faber/Sheraton
Hotel
CH 900
CH 1000
CH 1100
CH 1200
CH 1300
CH 1400
Figure 4.5: Plan View of Location for Design Size Sand
Table 4.4: Summary of Design Size Ranges for Borrow Sand
Parameter
Size (mm)
Parameter
Size (mm)
Parameter
Size (mm)
Parameter
Size (mm)
From CH 375 to CH600 and CH.1100 to CH1350
(Sand Sizes on the Upper Beach Face)
D16
D50
0.282
0.820
From CH 375 to CH600 to CH.1100 to CH1350
(Sand Sizes on the Lower Beach Face)
D16
D50
0.168
0.280
For the Middle Stretch From CH600 to CH.1100
(Sand Sizes on the Upper Beach Face)
D16
D50
0.550
1.000
For the Middle Stretch From CH600 to CH.1100
(Sand Sizes on the Lower Beach Face)
D16
D50
0.230
0.330
D84
1.600
D84
0.434
D84
1.300
D84
0.520
68
Table 4.5(a): Sand Size Analysis (upper beach face for pre-project condition)
Location
PB - aN
PB - aS
Mean
Location
HB - aN
HB - aS
Mean
D16
0.220
0.250
0.235
D16
0.550
0.300
0.425
Above MSL – Coarser Sand (mm)
D50
D84
BAND
0.330
0.820
0.600
0.850
1.400
1.150
0.590
1.110
0.875
D50
D84
BAND
1.000
1.300
0.750
0.600
1.100
0.800
0.800
1.200
0.775
SORTED INDEX
1.818
1.353
1.483
SORTED INDEX
0.750
1.333
0.969
Table 4.5(b): Sand Size Analysis (lower beach face for pre-project condition)
Location
PB - bN
PB - bS
Mean
Location
HB - bN
HB - bS
Mean
Description:PB - Public beach;
Band = D84-D16;
a – above MSL;
D16
0.095
0.100
0.098
D16
0.120
0.120
0.120
Below MSL – Finer Sand (mm)
D50
D84
BAND
0.150
0.240
0.145
0.140
0.230
0.130
0.145
0.235
0.138
D50
D84
BAND
0.200
0.310
0.190
0.180
0.250
0.130
0.190
0.280
0.160
HB - Hotel Beach;
Sorted Index = Band/D50;
b - below MSL;
N - Neap sample;
SORTED INDEX
0.967
0.929
0.948
SORTED INDEX
0.950
0.722
0.842
S - Spring Sample
69
4.4
Determination of Depth of Closure from Beach Profile Survey
The depth of closure was determined at 14 chainage lines (CH 100 to CH 1400)
for both pre and post installation condition. For both conditions, FDC method was used
to determine the closure depth by applying 0.25 m criteria line which corresponds to the
accuracy of hydrographic surveys. The depth of closure for each chainage is expected to
occur at the middle-shore. Figures of representative profiles are presented for better
appreciation of the analysis. The discussion is presented beginning from the north
direction to the south direction starting from CH 100 and ending at CH 1400. It is also
useful to note that the movement of sediment is from north to south.
4.5
Depth of Closure for Pre-Project Condition (2003)
The beach response to the PEM system can be observed from the temporal
variation of its depth of closure. In order to compare the variations of depth, the closure
depth before the installation of PEM need to be determined first.
4.5.1
Closure Depth at CH 700 and CH 1400
Based on analysis, it is found that FDC method does not produce a closure at
these chainages whereby according to the FDC criterion line, all the FDC lines remain
below the limit line i.e 25 cm. As for information, CH 700 was installed with PEM pipe.
70
4.5.2
Closure Depth at CH 100
CH 100 is located at the northern part of the beach where the granite headlands
of Tanjung Pelindung Tengah is located. Based on the graph below, it is proven that the
beach level is higher in which at the first 0 m distance, the beach level of about 50 m
LSD was recorded and it is sharply decreased seaward. The first closure point was
registered at 280 m from the baseline as -1.2 m and the reopening point begins at a
distance 350 m until close at 360 m. Sand bar appears at 410 m to 520 m due to the
migration of the sediment towards the sea. Nevertheless, the bed elevation remains
stable and the closure zone was found to be at the middle-shore located at 630 m with
the depth of -3.45 m LSD towards the sea.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 100 (CH 100)
50
5
4.75
4.5
4.25
40
4
3.75
3.5
30
3.25
hcm= -3.45 m @ 630 m
2.75
20
2.5
2.25
2
1.75
10
1.5
1.25
1
0
0.75
0.5
0.25
-10
0
60
160
260
360
460
560
660
760
860
960
1060
1160
1260
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.6: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 100 for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
3
71
4.5.3
Closure Depth at CH 200
Similar to CH 100, CH 200 is placed at the northern part of the beach where the
granite headlands of Tanjung Pelindung Tengah is located. Figure 4.7 shows that the
beach level is still higher at 0 m with the value of about 50 m LSD and it sharply
decreases towards the sea. The profile shows that the beach is stable along the chainage
indicated that no significant bed elevation change occurred. The innershore closure
depth was recorded as -2.45 m LSD and located at 310 m from the baseline. The next
closure point was found to be at the middle-shore at a distance of 680 m with the depth
of -4.75 m LSD and deemed as an effective closure depth for CH 200.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 200 (CH 200)
50
5
4.75
4.5
4.25
40
4
3.75
3.5
30
3.25
2.75
20
2.5
hci= -2.45 m @ 310m
2.25
hcm= -4.75 m @ 680m
2
1.75
10
1.5
1.25
1
0
0.75
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.7: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 200 for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
3
72
4.5.4
Closure Depth at CH 300
Figure 4.8 below shows that the beach level starts at higher level with the value
of about 23 m LSD. The FDC method shows no change in shoreline position although
there is a significant change in bed elevation about 120 m to 230 m after the shoreline.
The beach is stable after this point towards the sea and thus, the effective closure depth
was recorded as -3.35 m LSD at a distance of 370 m from the baseline. The closure zone
starts at 370 m from the baseline and closes at a distance of 840 m from the baseline.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 300 (CH 300)
5
4.75
4.5
20
4.25
4
3.75
15
3.5
3.25
Depth, m
10
2.75
hci= -3.35 m @ 370m
2.5
2.25
5
2
1.75
1.5
0
1.25
1
0.75
-5
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.8: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 300 for for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
3
73
4.5.5 Closure Depth at CH 400
Figure 4.9 below shows that the shoreline is moved shoreward about 40 m
between March 2003 and September 2003.The FDC method registered a hci of -2.65 m
LSD and hcm of -4.75 LSD at 170 m and 580 m from the baseline respectively. A sand
bar appears at distance 120 to 180 m just after the shoreline indicates that the sediment
has migrated seaward. Significant bed elevation changes also occur at the outer-shore
bar at 1020 m from the baseline. Accordingly, the reopening zone was found to be near
the offshore limit indicating that the active movement of sediment exists. The effective
hc is -2.65 m LSD.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 400 (CH 400)
4
5
4.75
4.5
2
4.25
4
3.75
0
3.5
hci= -2.65 m @ 170m
-2
3
2.75
hcm= -4.75 m @ 580m
2.5
2.25
-4
2
1.75
1.5
-6
1.25
1
0.75
-8
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.9: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 400 for for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
3.25
74
4.5.6
Closure Depth at CH 500
At CH 500, the FDC plot exceeds the 0.25 m criteria line above MLW and closes
530 m from the baseline. The first down-crossing FDC line is recorded to be at 530 m
from the baseline. Therefore, the effective FDC hc for CH 500 is thus -4.65 m and 530 m
from the baseline. The closure zone was to be found at 530 m to 950 m from the
baseline. The significant bed elevation change only occurs at the outershore region
indicating that the beach is unstable.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 500 (CH 500)
6
5
4.75
5
4.5
4
4.25
3
4
2
3.75
3.5
1
3.25
0
2.75
-2
2.5
hcm= -4.65 m @ 530m
-3
2.25
2
-4
1.75
-5
1.5
-6
1.25
1
-7
0.75
-8
0.5
-9
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.10: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 500 for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
3
-1
75
4.5.7
Closure Depth at CH 600
A closure zone appears at a distance of 220 m to 700 m from the baseline. The
inner-shore closure depth (hci) was recorded as -3.45 m LSD at 220 m as the inner-shore
bar does not contribute to the shoreline changes. The middle-shore closure depth was
found to be at 700 m with the depth of -6.25 m. The effective hc for CH 600 is -3.45 m
LSD which lies 220 m from the shoreline. Nevertheless, in the outer-shore region, the
bed elevation appears to produces some changes beginning from 920 m towards the sea
indicating that the area is classified as reopening zone.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 600 (CH 600)
8
2
7
6
1.75
5
4
3
1.5
2
1
1.25
-1
hci= -3.45 m @ 220m
-2
1
-3
hcm= -6.25 m @ 700m
-4
0.75
-5
-6
-7
0.5
-8
-9
0.25
-10
-11
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.11: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 600 for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
76
4.5.8
Closure Depth at CH 800
Figure 4.12 below shows two closure points along the profile line for CH 800.
The FDC method plot exceeds the 0.25 m criteria line above MLW and closes 130 m
from the baseline. The effective FDC hc, for CH 800 is thus the first closure point -1.55
m LSD and 130 m from the baseline. Based on FDC method, the significant bed
elevation change only occurs at distance 120 m which varies about 0.8 m depth from
March 2003 to September 2003. After that point, the sea bed elevation remains stable
whereby the variations are less than 0.25 m below the criteria line and thus recognized as
closure zone. Closure depth, hco registered as -8.45 m and located 940 m from the
baseline.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 800 (CH800)
8
2
6
1.75
hci= -1.55 m @ 130m
4
1.5
2
1.25
-2
hco= -8.45 m @ 940m
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.12: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 800 for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
77
4.5.9
Closure Depth at CH 900
Similar to CH 800, at least two closure points appear at distance of 170 m and
950 m with depth of -2.65 m and -8.55 m respectively. It is found that the inner-shore
bar does not contribute to the shoreline changes. No significant bed elevation change
occurs after the first closure point indicating that the beach is stable.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 900 (CH900)
8
2
6
1.75
hci= -2.65 m @ 170m
4
1.5
2
1.25
hco= -8.55 m @ 950m
-2
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.13: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 900 for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
78
4.5.10 Closure Depth at CH 1000
A closure zone appears at a distance of 190 m to 690 m from the baseline. The
inner-shore closure depth (hci) was recorded as -2.85 m LSD at 220 m as the inner-shore
bar does not contribute to the shoreline changes. The effective hc for CH 1000 is -2.85 m
LSD which lies 220 m from the baseline. The bed elevation change shows no significant
variations after this point towards the sea.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1000 (CH1000)
8
2
6
1.75
hci= -2.85 m @ 190m
4
1.5
2
1.25
-2
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.14: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1000 for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
79
4.5.11 Closure Depth at CH 1100
Applying the FDC method, a closure zone is observed at CH 1100 from 580 m to
880 m and the first re-opening point appeared at the inner-shore bar 190 m from the
baseline as shown in Figure 4.15. The inner-shore closure depth is recorded as -2.55 m at
190 m distance from the baseline. Next, the second closure depth is observed as -6.1 m
LSD which lies 580 m from the baseline. Ah CH 1100, the effective hc is therefore -6.1
m at 580 m from the baseline.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1100 (CH1100)
14
5
4.75
12
4.5
4.25
10
4
8
hci= -2.55 m @ 190m
3.75
3.5
6
3.25
3
2.75
2
2.5
0
2.25
2
-2
hcm= -6.1m @ 580m
-4
1.75
1.5
1.25
-6
1
-8
0.75
0.5
-10
0.25
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.15: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1100 for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
4
80
4.5.12 Closure Depth at CH 1200
The re-opening zone was observed at a distance of 860 m to 1140 m from the
baseline where the FDC line up-crosses and down-crosses the 0.25 m criteria line
alternately along the profile. This area is considered an area of significant sediment
transport activity. However, the closure depth was not found within this area. The
effective hc for CH 1200 is -4.6 m LSD which lies 340 m at the inner-shore limit from
the baseline. The shoreline is change due to the inner-shore bar located at 190 m from
the baseline.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1200 (CH1200)
14
5
4.75
12
4.5
4.25
10
4
8
3.75
hci= -4.6 m @ 340m
6
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2
2.5
0
2.25
2
-2
1.75
-4
1.5
1.25
-6
1
-8
0.75
0.5
-10
0.25
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.16: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1200 for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
4
81
4.5.13 Closure Depth at CH 1300
The re-opening zone was observed at a distance of 360 m to 870 m from the
baseline where the FDC line up-crosses and down-crosses the 0.25 m criteria line
alternately along the profile. This area is considered an area of significant sediment
transport activity. The effective hc for CH 1300 was found to be -2.35 m LSD which lies
210 m at the inner-shore limit from the baseline.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1300 (CH1300)
32
5
30
4.75
28
4.5
26
4.25
24
4
22
3.75
20
3.5
18
3.25
hci= -2.35 m @ 210m
Depth, m
14
3
2.75
12
10
2.5
8
2.25
6
2
4
1.75
2
1.5
0
1.25
-2
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-03
Sep-03
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.17: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1300 for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC, m
16
82
4.6
Summary of Depth of Closure for Pre-Project Condition
The analysis of depth of closure before installation of PEM system revealed that
multiple closure across the profile produce at least three closure points as shown in
Table 4.6. Applying the FDC method, whereby the criteria line was set at 0.25 m, the
FDC line was recorded to be starting below the criteria line for all chainage. Therefore, it
is easy to note that the line down-crosses the limit line deemed as closure point or
reopening point. Out of 14 chainages, only two chainage were not registered i.e CH 700
and Ch 1400. Unfortunately, the FDC line remained below the criteria line along the
profile line in which the closure depth does not existed. It is also found that the
movement of sediment is active near the outer-shore zone at all chainages. Based on
Table 4.6, the average hc is recorded as -2.58 m below MLW and at 319 m from the
baseline.
Table 4.6: Closure Depth for 2003 Pre-Project Profile
FDC hc (Mac 2003 –September 2003)
hci,
hcm,
Effective hc,
Distance
Chainage
(m)
(m)
(m)
Offshore,
LSD
LSD
MLW
(m)
CH 100
na
-3.45
-2.79
630
CH 200
-2.45
-4.75
-4.09
680
CH 300
-3.35
na
-2.69
370
CH 400
-2.65
-4.75
-1.99
170
CH 500
na
-4.65
-3.99
530
CH 600
-3.45
-6.25
-2.79
220
CH 700
na
na
na
na
CH 800
-1.55
-8.45
-0.89
130
CH 900
-2.65
-8.55
-1.99
170
CH 1000
-2.85
na
-2.19
190
CH 1100
-2.55
-6.1
-1.89
190
CH 1200
-4.6
na
-3.94
340
CH 1300
-2.35
na
-1.69
210
CH 1400
na
na
na
na
Average
-2.85
-5.87
-2.58
319
hci = innershore closure depth; hcm = middleshore closure depth; hco=outershore closure depth;
na=not available
83
4.7
Depth of Closure for Post-Project Condition
The closure depths after the installation of PEM system beginning from year
2005 to 2007 were determined and presented in the following section. Similar to
analysis of closure depth before the installation of PEM system, the FDC method was
used and the absolute bed change along the same profile over two consecutive surveys is
plotted to describe the profile change along the profile line as well as to determine the
effective depth of closure, hc. The closure depth after the installation of PEM system was
compared with the analysis before the installation to reveal the response of beach due to
this system.
4.8
2005 Beach Profile
Figures 4.18 to Figure 4.31 show the beach profile surveys for all chainages
beginning from CH 100 and ending at CH 1400. Most of the profile lines show that the
change in bed elevation is varied between two consecutives survey indicating that the
movement of sediment is highly active within the PEM area. It is useful to note that, the
PEM system was installed in 2004 in combination with beach nourishment activity and
the first survey was carried out in March 2005. Therefore, it is reliable if the bed profile
is varied since the sand starts to move seaward and shoreward before it remains stable to
achieve the equilibrium profile.
84
4.8.1
Closure Depth at CH 100
Figure 4.18 below shows the beach profile for CH 100. The closure point was
observed at -1.55 m LSD located at 280 m from the baseline. The reopening point is
recorded at 350 m until it closes at 410 m. The insignificant bed elevation changes was
observed at the middleshore area and produce a closure point at 730 m from the base line
with the depth of -4.9 m LSD. The outershore closure depth was found to be at -8.1 m
LSD located 1010 m far away from the shoreline. However, hcm was qualified as
effective closure depth.
18
17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
hci= -1.55 m @ 280m
hcm= -4.9 m @ 730m
hco= -8.1 m @ 1010m
60
260
460
660
860
1060
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.18: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 100 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
1260
FDC, m
Depth, m
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 100 (CH 100)
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
85
4.8.2
Closure Depth at CH 200
The insignificant change in bed elevation at the innershore zone does not
contribute to the shoreline changes. Multiple closure point was recorded along the
profile line of CH 200 as shown in Figure 4.18. The first downcrossing FDC line was
found at -2.35 m LSD and 270 m from the baseline. The middleshore closure point is
registered at 710 m from the baseline with the depth of -5.05 m LSD thus deemed as an
effective closure depth since the variation in bed elevation create a small change. Last
but not least, the outershore closure was observed at -8.65 m and 1030 m from the
baseline.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 200 (CH 200)
50
5
4.75
4.5
4.25
40
4
3.75
3.5
30
hci= -2.35 m @ 270m
3.25
hcm= -5.05 m @ 710m
2.75
20
2.5
2.25
hco= -8.65 m @ 1030m
2
1.75
10
1.5
1.25
1
0
0.75
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.19: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 200 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
3
86
4.8.3
Closure Depth at CH 300
Applying the FDC method, the first downcrossing FDC line was found to be at 2.25 m LSD located 180 m from the baseline. A reopening zone appears at the
middleshore area at 680 m to 860 m from the baseline. This indicates that the active
movement of the sediment is occurring. The middleshore closure point is registered at 3.95 m and 520 m from the baseline. However, hci was qualified as effective closure
depth.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 300 (CH 300)
5
4.75
4.5
20
4.25
4
3.75
hci= -2.25 m @ 180m
15
3.5
3.25
Depth, m
hcm= -3.95 m @ 520m
2.75
2.5
2.25
5
2
1.75
1.5
0
1.25
1
0.75
-5
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.20: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 300 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
3
10
87
4.8.4
Closure Depth at CH 400
At CH 400, the significant bed elevation changes were found at the innershore
area thus contributing to shoreline changes. This phenomena showed that the sediment is
moving towards the sea. The first closure point only can be found 360 m away from
baseline associated with depth of -3.65 m LSD. The effective closure depth was
registered at the middleshore zone -5.2 m LSD located at 640 m from the baseline. The
sea bed is stable after this point whereby the FDC line remains below the criteria line.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 400 (CH 400)
4
3
hci= -3.4 m @ 280m
2.75
2
2.5
2.25
0
2
1.75
1.5
-4
1.25
1
-6
0.75
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.21: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 400 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
hcm= -5.2 m @ 640m
-2
88
4.8.5
Closure Depth at CH 500
Similar to CH 400, the significant changes in bed elevation occur at the
innershore area thus provide a shoreline change about 20 m from March 2005 to October
2005. The innershore closure point was registered to be -3.15 m LSD and 220 m from
the baseline however does not qualify as effective closure depth. The hcm was chosen to
be effective closure depth as the FDC line remains below the FDC criteria line of 0.25
m. This indicates that no significant change in bottom elevation and no significant net
sediment transport between the nearshore and offshore occurred. The point was found at
510 m from the baseline with depth of -4.85 m.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 500 (CH 500)
6
2.5
hci= -3.15 m @ 220m
4
2.25
2
2
1.75
0
hcm= -4.85 m @ 510 m
-2
1.25
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.22: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 500 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
1.5
89
4.8.6
Closure Depth at CH 600
A reopening zone appears at a distance of 220 m to 590 m from the baseline. The
zone of about 370 m thus describe that the movement of sediment is highly active. This
scenario affected the change of the shoreline which shows that the PEM system is
functioning. The effective closure depth can be found away from the shoreline which is
located 790 m from the baseline and placed at -7.00 m LSD.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 600 (CH 600)
8
3
2.75
6
hci= -7.00 m @ 790m
2.5
4
2.25
2
2
1.75
-2
1.5
1.25
-4
1
-6
0.75
-8
0.5
-10
0.25
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.23: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 600 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
90
4.8.7
Closure Depth at CH 700
By applying the FDC method, the FDC line is seen to be upcrossing and
downcrossing alternately within the innershore area. This phenomena was found to be
the same as at CH 400, CH500 and CH 600. It is useful to note that the PEM pipe was
installed at these chainages. Again, the PEM shows a positive sign that the system is
functioning to accumulate sand on the nearshore zone. The effective closure depth lies
730 m from the baseline and placed at -6.65 m LSD.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 700 (CH700)
8
3
2.75
hci= -6.65 m @ 730m
6
2.5
4
2.25
2
2
1.75
-2
1.5
1.25
-4
1
-6
0.75
-8
0.5
-10
0.25
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.24: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 700 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
91
4.8.8
Closure Depth at CH 800
The beach profile at CH 800 shows that the reopening zone starts at distance of
180 m and closes at a distance of 980 m from the baseline. This phenomena indicates
that the active sediment transport is occurring within the distance. The beach is stable
after this point and remains below the criteria line up to distance 1100 m. It is very
difficult to determine the effective closure depth due to the irregular changes in bottom
elevation. Therefore, no closure depth was found at CH 800.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 800 (CH800)
8
3
2.75
6
2.5
4
2.25
2
2
0
-2
1.5
1.25
-4
1
-6
0.75
-8
0.5
-10
0.25
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.25: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 800 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
1.75
92
4.8.9
Closure Depth at CH 900
The beach profile at CH 900 shows that the reopening zone appears at a distance
of 220 m and closes at a distance of 750 m from the baseline. Similar to CH 800, this
phenomena indicates that the active sediment transport occurrs within the distance.
Refreshing that the closure depth is defined as the most landward depth where there is no
significant change in bed elevation, thus closure depth at CH 900 could not be found due
to irregular changes in bottom elevation within the reopening zone. However, this shows
a positive sign that the PEM system is functioning along the profile line at this chainage.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 900 (CH900)
8
3
2.75
6
2.5
4
2.25
2
2
1.75
-2
1.5
1.25
-4
1
-6
0.75
-8
0.5
-10
0.25
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.26: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 900 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
93
4.8.10 Closure Depth at CH 1000
At CH 1000, a closure zone appears at 340 m and closes at distance of 660 m
from the base line. At least, two innershore closure points was observed at CH 1000,
however, the outermost closure point is deemed as a closure point i.e hci = -4.25 m LSD,
located 340 m from the baseline. The middleshore closure point was found to be at -6.45
m located 660 m from the baseline. Therefore, the effective closure depth was qualified
as the outermost innershore closure point.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1000 (CH1000)
8
3
2.75
6
2.5
4
2.25
2
2
1.75
hci= -4.25 m @ 340m
-2
1.5
hcm= -6.45 m @ 660m
-4
1.25
1
-6
0.75
-8
0.5
-10
0.25
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.27: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1000 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
94
4.8.11 Closure Depth at CH 1100
The reopening zone exists again however this time the zone appears at the
middleshore area located 440 m from the baseline and lasted until approach the offshore
zone. The innershore closure point in which represent the effective closure depth was
found to be at 220 m from the baseline and placed -3.15 m LSD.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1100 (CH1100)
14
3
12
2.75
10
2.5
8
2.25
hci or hc = -3.15 m @ 220m
6
2
4
1.5
0
1.25
-2
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.28: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1100 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
1.75
2
95
4.8.12 Closure Depth at CH 1200
At CH 1200, a sand bar was found to be at distance of 490 m to 610 m from the
baseline. The middleshore closure point (hcm) is registered on this sand bar which is
located 580 m from the baseline and placed -5.55 m LSD. However this does not qualify
as an effective closure depth. Nevertheless, two others closure point appear along the
profile line i.e hci -2.90 m LSD and located 230 m from the baseline, and hco -8.65 m
LSD located 860 m from the baseline. Using FDC method, hci is deserved to be as an
effective closure depth. It is also found that the beach seemed to be eroded since the
shoreline had shifted back to the land. This might happen due to several factors.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1200 (CH1200)
14
10
9.5
12
9
8.5
10
8
8
7.5
hci= -2.90 m @ 230m
6
7
6.5
6
5.5
2
5
0
4.5
4
hci= -5.55 m @ 580m
-2
3.5
hci= -8.65 m @ 860m
-4
3
2.5
-6
2
-8
1.5
1
-10
0.5
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.29: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1200 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
4
96
4.8.13 Closure Depth at CH 1300
The significant bed elevation change appears along the profile line at CH 1300.
The most obvious change was observed at 860 m from the baseline towards the sea. The
profiles envelope first closes at -4.8 m LSD, 350 m from the baseline. Another closure
point is detected at -7.4 m LSD at 670 m from the baseline and represents as hcm. The
effective closure depth was found to be at 670 m due to insignificant bed activity.
Therefore the closure depth is recorded to be at -7.4 m LSD.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1300 (CH1300)
32
10
30
9.5
28
9
26
8.5
24
8
22
7.5
20
hci= -4.8 m @ 350m
18
7
6.5
16
Depth, m
hcm= -7.4 m @ 670m
12
5.5
10
5
8
4.5
6
4
4
3.5
2
3
0
2.5
-2
2
-4
1.5
-6
1
-8
0.5
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.30: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1300 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
6
14
97
4.8.14 Closure Depth at CH 1400
Figure 4.31 below shows the beach profile for CH 1400. The graph illustrates
that there is no shoreline change occurring at this chainage even though insignificant bed
elevation appears 250 m after the shoreline. The hci closure is detected at -3.6 m LSD
located 260 m from the baseline however does not recognize effective closure depth.
The hcm is chosen as effective depth since the FDC line remains below the limit line. The
closure point was found to be at -6.15 m LSD, 480 m from the baseline.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1400 (CH1400)
50
5
48
4.75
46
44
4.5
42
4.25
40
38
4
36
3.75
34
32
3.5
30
3.25
28
hci= -3.6 m @ 260m
24
Depth, m
3
2.75
22
20
2.5
18
hcm= -6.15 m @ 480m
16
2.25
14
2
12
10
1.75
8
1.5
6
4
1.25
2
1
0
-2
0.75
-4
0.5
-6
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-05
Oct-05
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.31: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1400 for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
26
98
4.9
Summary of Depth of Closure for 2005 Post-Project Condition
A summary of depths of closure for 2005 profiles is presented in Table 4.7
below. From the analysis, the significant bed elevation change occurred at most of the
chainages along the profile line. The average of the effective closure depth, hc was
recorded as -4.32 m MLW and this value is deeper compared to the beach profile for
2003. This indicates that the depth increment occurs in bed elevation. The closure point
was also detected further seaward which lies 670 m from the baseline. As a conclusion,
the PEM system was proven to increase the deposition of materials on the foreshore,
thereby building up the beach from the sediments transported along the coast.
Table 4.7: Closure Depth for 2005 Post-Project Profile
FDC hc (Mac 2005 –October 2005)
Chainage
hci,
(m)
LSD
hcm,
(m)
LSD
hco,
(m)
MLW
Effective hc,
(m)
MLW
CH 100
-1.55
-4.9
-8.1
CH 200
-2.35
-5.05
-8.65
CH 300
-2.25
-3.95
na
CH 400
-3.4
-5.2
na
CH 500
-3.15
-4.85
na
CH 600
-7.00
na
na
CH 700
-6.65
na
na
CH 800
na
na
na
CH 900
na
na
na
CH 1000
-4.25
-6.45
na
CH 1100
-3.15
na
na
CH 1200
-2.90
-5.55
-8.65
CH 1300
-4.8
-7.4
na
CH 1400
-3.6
-6.15
na
Average
-3.75
-5.50
-8.47
hci = innershore closure depth; hcm = middleshore closure depth;
na=not available
Distance
Offshore,
(m)
-4.24
730
-4.39
710
-1.59
180
-4.54
640
-4.19
510
-6.34
790
-5.99
730
na
na
na
na
-3.59
340
-2.49
220
-2.24
230
-6.74
670
-5.49
480
-4.32
519
hco=outershore closure depth;
99
4.10
2006 Beach Profile
The 2006 beach profiles were analyzed and results are presented have indicates
that the significant bed changes occurred along the profile lines similar to the 2005
profiles especially at the PEM areas. Figure 4.32 to Figure 4.45 shows the profile survey
for CH 100 until CH 1400.
4.10.1 Closure Depth at CH 100
The significant change in bed elevation appears to start at the shoreline before it
become stable at 530 m from the baseline. The effective closure depth (hc) can be found
only 50 m just after the end point of significant change in bed elevation i.e 580 m from
the baseline. This point was chosen in accordance to the FDC method whereby there is
no significant change observed after this point and seaward. Therefore, the closure depth
is qualified to be -3.35 m LSD.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 100 (CH 100)
60
7
6.75
6.5
6.25
50
6
5.75
hcm= -3.35 m @ 580m
5.5
5.25
40
5
4.75
4.5
4
3.75
3.5
3.25
20
FDC, m
Depth, m
4.25
30
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
10
2
1.75
1.5
1.25
0
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.32: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 100 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
100
4.10.2 Closure Depth at CH 200
At CH 200, the significant bed elevation occurs along the survey line. The
innershore area shows the obvious variations in bottom elevation located 150 m to 590
m from the baseline, however does not contribute to shoreline changes. The effective hc
was detected to be at 720 m from the baseline and placed -5.05 m LSD.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 200 (CH 200)
50
7
6.75
6.5
6.25
6
40
5.75
5.5
5.25
5
4.75
30
4.5
hcm= -5.05 m @ 720m
3.75
20
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
10
2.25
2
1.75
1.5
1.25
0
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.33: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 200 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
4.25
4
101
4.10.3 Closure Depth at CH 300
The shoreline was established at CH 300 although the innershore area shows
significant changes in bed elevation. The first downcrossing FDC criteria line was found
to be at -2.65 m LSD and located 220 m from the baseline (see Figure 4.34). A
reopening point is registered at 340 m of the baseline until closes at 670 m seaward. At
this point, the hcm closure point was detected with depth of -4.95 m LSD and thus
recognized as effective closure depth.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 300 (CH 300)
4
5
4.75
4.5
2
4.25
4
hci= -2.65 m @ 220m
3.75
0
3.5
3.25
hcm= -4.95 m @ 670m
Depth, m
-2
2.75
2.5
2.25
-4
2
1.75
1.5
-6
1.25
1
0.75
-8
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.34: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 300 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
3
102
4.10.4 Closure Depth at CH 400
At CH 400, the innershore closure depth was recorded at -2.65 m LSD located
190 m from the baseline. Applying the FDC method, the reopening zone was found to be
along the profile line starting from 190 m to 1210 m of the baseline. This phenomena
indicates that the active movement of sediment is taking place due to the PEM system.
The middleshore closure point is registered at 680 m from the baseline and placed -5.55
m LSD.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 400 (CH 400)
4
5
4.75
4.5
2
4.25
hci= -2.65 m @ 190m
4
3.75
0
3.5
3.25
hcm= -5.55 m @ 680m
2.75
2.5
2.25
-4
2
1.75
1.5
-6
1.25
1
0.75
-8
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.35: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 400 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
-2
3
103
4.10.5 Closure Depth at CH 500 until CH 800
Figure 4.36 to Figure 4.39 shows the profile survey for CH 500 to CH 800
respectively. The profiles are group together due to similarity results obtained for all
chainages. The significant bed elevation changes are obviously occurs along the profile
line beginning from the shoreline until reaching the offshore zone. Accordingly, the
reopening zone appears at all chainage along the profile survey indicates the active
movement of sediment. By using FDC method, the FDC lines seem to be downcrossing
and upcrossing the limit line alternately with a little gap. This makes the analysis
difficult in order to determine the closure depth. Therefore, as a conclusion, there is no
closure point detected for all chainage due to inconsistency variation in bottom
elevation. However, the shoreline is seemed to be established for all chainages.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 500 (CH 500)
6
5
4.75
4.5
4
4.25
4
2
3.75
3.5
3.25
0
2.75
-2
2.5
2.25
FDC, m
Depth, m
3
2
-4
1.75
1.5
-6
1.25
1
0.75
-8
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.36: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 500 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
104
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 600 (CH 600)
8
5
4.75
4.5
6
4.25
4
4
3.75
3.5
2
3.25
Depth, m
0
2.75
2.5
2.25
-2
FDC, m
3
2
1.75
-4
1.5
1.25
-6
1
0.75
-8
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.37: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 600 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 700 (CH700)
8
5
4.75
4.5
6
4.25
4
4
3.75
3.5
2
3.25
0
2.75
2.5
2.25
-2
FDC, m
Depth, m
3
2
1.75
-4
1.5
1.25
-6
1
0.75
-8
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.38: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 700 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
105
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 800 (CH800)
8
5
4.75
4.5
6
4.25
4
4
3.75
3.5
2
3.25
0
2.75
2.5
2.25
-2
FDC, m
Depth, m
3
2
1.75
-4
1.5
1.25
-6
1
0.75
-8
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.39: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 800 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
4.10.6 Closure Depth at CH 900
A closure zone appears at CH 900 beginning from 220 m to 550 m from the
baseline as shown in Figure 4.49. Based on FDC method, the innershore closure point
(hci) was found to be at -3.3 m LSD located 220 m from the baseline and thus recognized
as effective closure depth whereby it is separated by outer bar by closure zone. Yet, it is
found that the significant bed elevation changes actively, occuring at the middleshore
area towards the sea.
106
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 900 (CH900)
8
5
4.75
4.5
6
4.25
4
4
3.75
3.5
2
3.25
0
2.75
2.5
2.25
-2
FDC, m
Depth, m
hci= -3.3 m @ 220m
3
2
1.75
-4
1.5
1.25
-6
1
0.75
-8
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.40 Closure depth (hc) at CH 900 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
4.10.7 Closure Depth at CH 1000
The reopening zone was observed to be at 240 m to 800 m from the baseline. The
first downcrossing limit line was found at 140 m from the baseline and placed -1.25 m
LSD. The next closure point (hcm) was registered at -7.55 m LSD located 800 m from the
baseline. This point thus qualifies as effective closure depth (hc) whereby an
insignificant change in bed elevation occurred after this point.
107
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1000 (CH1000)
8
5
4.75
4.5
6
4.25
4
4
3.75
3.5
hci= -1.25 m @ 140m
2
3.25
0
2.75
2.5
2.25
-2
hcm= -7.55 m @ 800m
FDC, m
Depth, m
3
2
1.75
-4
1.5
1.25
-6
1
0.75
-8
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.41: Closure depth (hc) at CH 1000 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
4.10.8 Closure Depth at CH 1100 and CH 1200
Figure 4.42 and Figure 4.43 shows similar results along the profile lines. A
shoreline retreat of almost 10 m and 40 m has occurred at the baseline for CH 1100 and
CH 1200 respectively. The significant changes in bottom elevation occur along the
profile lines for both chainages. This indicates that the significant sediment transport
activity had achieved as explained by FDC method. Therefore, similar to CH 500 to CH
800, the closure depth was not found at these chainages.
108
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1100 (CH1100)
14
5
4.75
12
4.5
4.25
10
4
8
3.75
3.5
6
3.25
Depth, m
2.75
2
2.5
2.25
0
FDC, m
3
4
2
1.75
-2
1.5
-4
1.25
1
-6
0.75
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.42: Closure depth (hc) at CH 1100 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1200 (CH1200)
14
6
12
5.5
5.75
5.25
10
5
4.75
8
4.5
4.25
6
4
3.75
4
3.25
2
3
0
2.75
FDC, m
Depth, m
3.5
2.5
-2
2.25
2
-4
1.75
1.5
-6
1.25
1
-8
0.75
0.5
-10
0.25
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.43: Closure depth (hc) at CH 1200 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
109
4.10.9 Closure Depth at CH 1300
Multiple closure point was recorded at CH 1300. The first down-crossing FDC
criteria line was found to be at 200 m and placed -1.65 m LSD. The middleshore closure
point appears at -5.95 m LSD and located 460 m from the base line and the hco is
registered to be at -8.05 m LSD located at 760 m from the baseline. A closure zone
appears to be at distance 460 m to 760 m from the baseline thus recognized hcm as
effective closure depth.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1300 (CH1300)
32
5
30
4.75
28
4.5
26
4.25
24
4
22
3.75
20
3.5
18
3.25
16
Depth, m
2.75
12
hci= -1.65 m @ 200m
10
2.5
8
2.25
6
hcm= -5.95 m @ 460m
4
2
1.75
2
1.5
0
1.25
-2
hco= -8.05 m @ 760m
-4
1
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
-10
0.25
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.44: Closure depth (hc) at CH 1300 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
3
14
110
4.10.10 Closure Depth at CH 1400
The shoreline for both surveys is located at 190 m from the baseline. The
innershore closure point was registered at -5.45 m LSD and 410 m from the baseline
does not produce any shoreline change. A closure zone was observed at 410 m and
closes again at 760 m from the baseline thus produce and effective closure depth at -7.55
m LSD located 760 m from the base line. The insignificant bed elevation was found at
the middleshore area indicates that the inactive sediment transport activity.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1400 (CH1400)
48
5
46
4.75
44
42
4.5
40
4.25
38
36
4
34
3.75
hci= -5.45 m @ 410m
32
30
hcm= -7.55 m @ 760m
28
26
3.25
3
22
2.75
20
18
2.5
16
2.25
14
12
2
10
1.75
8
6
1.5
4
1.25
2
0
1
-2
0.75
-4
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-06
Oct-06
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.45: Closure depth (hc) at CH 1400 for 2006 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
24
3.5
111
4.11
Summary of Depth of Closure for 2006 Post-Project Condition
The summary of closure depth for profile surveys 2006 is presented in Table 4.8
below. Out of 14 chainages, six chainage sections failed to produce any closure point i.e
CH 500, CH 600, CH 700, CH 800, CH 1100 and CH 1200. This happened due to
significant changes of bed sediment which occur along the profile survey. However, this
is a good sign to indicate that the area is effectively treated by PEM system. The
shorelines at CH 1200 to CH 1400 tend to be eroded due to the PEM pipe. Logically, if
the groyne were to be placed at CH 1200 where the sediment is moved from north to
south, the erosion could happen at CH 1300. This phenomena is the same as this
scenario whereby the PEM pipes were placed at CH 1200. Consequently, the erosion
occurs at CH 1300. Another reason why CH1300 tends to be eroded is because it is
located at the headland of Tg. Tembeling where the wave energy is concentrated.
Table 4.8: Closure Depth for 2006 Post-Project Profile
FDC hc (Mac 2006 –October 2006)
Chainage
hci,
(m)
LSD
hcm,
(m)
LSD
hco,
(m)
LSD
Effective hc,
(m)
MLW
CH 100
na
-3.35
na
CH 200
na
-5.05
na
CH 300
-2.65
-4.95
na
CH 400
-2.65
-5.55
na
CH 500
na
na
na
CH 600
na
na
na
CH 700
na
na
na
CH 800
na
na
na
CH 900
-3.3
na
na
CH 1000
-1.25
-7.55
na
CH 1100
na
na
na
CH 1200
na
na
na
CH 1300
-1.65
-5.95
-8.05
CH 1400
-5.45
-7.55
na
Average
-2.83
-5.70
-8.05
hci = innershore closure depth; hcm = middleshore closure depth;
na=not available
Distance
Offshore,
(m)
-2.69
580
-4.39
720
-4.29
670
-4.89
190
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
-2.64
220
-6.89
800
na
na
na
na
-5.29
460
-6.89
760
-4.74
550
hco=outershore closure depth;
112
4.12
2007 Beach Profiles
Beach profile surveys for the third year after the installation of PEM system were
presented in the following section. The profile lines for each chainage described that the
closure depths appear along the profile line. The bed elevation changes show that the
small regular variation observed at all chainage, indicating that the beach is stable as it
approaches the offshore zone. Unfortunately, the depth of closure was not found at CH
400 whereby using FDC method, the FDC line shows that the lines are below the limit
line.
4.12.1 Closure Depth at CH 100
At CH 100, the FDC method produces an effective depth of -5.15 m LSD located
at 750 m from the baseline. The FDC lines remain below the criteria line of 0.25 m after
this point indicates that the bed elevation change is insignificant.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 100 (CH 100)
50
5
4.75
4.5
4.25
40
4
hcm = -5.15 m @ 750m
3.75
3.5
30
3.25
Depth, m
2.75
20
2.5
2.25
FDC, m
3
2
1.75
10
1.5
1.25
1
0
0.75
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.46: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 100 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
113
4.12.2 Closure Depth at CH 200
The closure zone appears at distance 730 m to 1030 m from the baseline. The
first down-crossing criteria line was observed at -5.25 m LSD and located 730 m at the
middleshore area, thus recognized as an effective closure depth for CH 200. Bed
elevation changes are insignificant at this chainage especially in the innershore area.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 200 (CH 200)
50
3
2.75
40
2.5
2.25
30
2
20
hcm = -5.25 m @ 730m
1.5
1.25
10
1
0.75
0
0.5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.47: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 200 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
1.75
114
4.12.3 Closure Depth at CH 300
The shoreline for both surveys is located at 100 m from the baseline. The
innershore closure point was registered at -2.53 m LSD and 190 m from the baseline
does not produce any shoreline change. The reopening point observed at 190 m and
closes again at 440 m from the baseline however does not produce any closure depth.
The effective closure depth only was found to be at -3.85 m LSD which is located 480 m
from the base line.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 300 (CH 300)
3
2.75
20
2.5
2.25
15
2
hci = -2.53 m @ 190 m
1.75
hc = -3.85 m @ 480 m
1.5
5
1.25
1
0
0.75
0.5
-5
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.48: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 300 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC,m
Depth, m
10
115
4.12.4 Closure Depth at CH 500
CH 500 shows FDC graph spiking over the criteria line at the innershore area but
further offshore the FDC plots do not up-cross the criteria line. There was some doubt
whether closure within 100 m of the baseline is accurate since this is the region where
gaps in survey data often exist. Hence the hci for CH 500 is placed at -3.65 m LSD,
located 340 m from the baseline. After this point, the FDC lines remain below the limit
line. This indicates that the hci closure point as an effective closure depth.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 500 (CH 500)
6
2
hc = -3.65 m @ 340 m
1.75
2
1.5
0
1.25
-2
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul 2007
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.49: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 500 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC,m
Depth, m
4
116
4.12.5 Closure Depth at CH 600
Figure below shows the beach profile survey at CH 600. From the analysis, it
was observed that only one closure point appear at the innershore area along the profile
line. The hci or effective closure depth hc is found to be at -1.45 m LSD, located 120 m
from the baseline. However it does not contribute to shoreline changes. The bed
elevation variations do not show any significant change as the sand approach the
offshore limit.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 600 (CH 600)
8
2
6
1.75
4
1.5
2
hci or hc = -1.45 m @ 120 m
1.25
-2
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.50: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 600 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
117
4.12.6 Closure Depth at CH 700
A closure zone appears to be at 120 m and close at 700 m from the baseline. The
significant bed elevation only occurs 170 m from the reopening point and ends at 870 m
from the baseline. Nevertheless, the bed elevation remains insignificant after this point
towards the sea. Therefore, the effective closure depth was registered to be at 120 m
from the baseline and placed -1.35 m LSD.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 700 (CH700)
8
2
hci or hc = -1.35 m @ 120 m
6
1.75
4
1.5
2
1.25
-2
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.51: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 700 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
118
4.12.7 Closure Depth at CH 800
Multiple closure point was recorded at CH 800. The first down-crossing FDC
criteria line was found to be at 310 m and placed -3.85 m LSD. The middleshore closure
point appears at -5.15 m LSD and located 530 m from the base line and hco was
registered to be at -6.85 m LSD, located at 760 m from the baseline. It is found that hco
was chosen as an effective closure depth due to the consistency of variation in bed
elevation compared to other both designated closure point.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 800 (CH800)
8
2
6
1.75
hci = -3.85 m @ 310 m
4
1.5
2
hcm = -5.15 m @ 530 m
1.25
-2
hco = -6.85 m @ 760 m
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.52: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 800 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
119
4.12.8 Closure Depth at CH 900
The FDC method shows that the FDC line remain below the criteria line until the
first downcrossing of the limit line is observed at 1030 m from the baseline and placed 9.15 m LSD. There is no doubt to qualify this single closure point as an effective closure
depth since there is no other point found along the profile lines. The bed elevation is
insignificant and the shoreline position is unchanged.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 900 (CH900)
8
2
6
1.75
4
1.5
2
1.25
hci = -9.15 m @ 1030 m
-2
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.53: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 900 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
120
4.12.9 Closure Depth at CH 1000
The result obtained at CH 1000 is contradicting with the result at CH 900 in
terms of the location of the closure point. However, it is still recorded that only one
closure point was found to be at this chainage. The effective closure point was registered
at 200 m distance from the baseline just after 80 m from the shoreline point. The depth
was found to be -2.75 m LSD, which did not contribute to shoreline changes.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1000 (CH1000)
8
2
6
1.75
hci = -2.75 m @ 200 m
4
1.5
2
1.25
-2
1
-4
0.75
-6
0.5
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.54: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1000 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
0
121
4.12.10 Closure Depth at CH 1100
Bed elevation changes were observed at the innershore area beginning from the
shoreline until it is stable again after 260 m from the baseline. The significant bed
elevation changes however do not contribute to shoreline changes. Thus, the effective hc
was qualified to be at -2.75 m LSD and lies at 210 m from the base line. From the profile
investigation, the seabed slope is smooth and gentle towards the sea.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1100 (CH1100)
14
2
12
1.75
hci = -2.75 m @ 210 m
10
8
1.5
6
Depth, m
2
1
0
-2
0.75
-4
0.5
-6
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.55: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1100 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
1.25
4
122
4.12.11 Closure Depth at CH 1200
At CH 1200, the FDC method produces an effective depth of -6.65 m LSD,
located at 590 m from the baseline. The FDC lines remain below the criteria line of 0.25
m after this point which indicates that the bed elevation change is insignificant towards
the sea.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1200 (CH1200)
14
2
12
1.75
10
hc = -6.65 m @ 590 m
8
1.5
6
Depth, m
2
1
0
-2
0.75
-4
0.5
-6
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.56: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1200 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
1.25
4
123
4.12.12 Closure Depth at CH 1300
A closure zone appears at a distance of 220 m to 980 m from the baseline. At this
chainage, a sand bar occurred at the middleshore area around 480 m to 610 m from the
baseline. From the survey, it was observed that the shoreline tend to erode about 10 m
even though, there is no significant change at the innershore area. The effective hc was
found to be at -2.05 m, located 220 m LSD from the baseline.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1300 (CH1300)
14
2
12
hc = -2.05 m @ 220 m
10
1.75
8
1.5
6
Depth, m
2
1
0
-2
0.75
-4
0.5
-6
-8
0.25
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.57: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1300 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
1.25
4
124
4.12.13 Closure Depth at CH 1400
The analysis proceeds from the shoreline at a distance 190 m from the baseline.
The significant bed elevation appears just 60 m after the shoreline which indicates the
active sediment transport up to 240 m from the baseline. The innershore closure depth
was found to be at 260 m from the baseline and placed -2.85 m LSD. The sea bed
remains stable since the FDC line is less than 0.25 m of limit line.
BEACH PROFILE FOR CHAINAGE 1400 (CH1400)
48
2
46
44
42
1.75
40
38
36
34
1.5
32
30
hc = -2.85 m @ 240 m
28
26
1.25
22
20
18
1
16
14
12
0.75
10
8
6
4
0.5
2
0
-2
-4
0.25
-6
-8
-10
-12
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance, m
Mar-07
Jul-07
MEAN
MLW
FDC
Criteria Line
Figure 4.58: Closure Depth (hc) at CH 1400 for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC, m
Depth, m
24
125
4.13
Summary of Depth of Closure for 2007 Post-Project Condition
The analysis of depth of closure for 2007 beach profiles after the installation of
the PEM system revealed that multiple closure across the profile produces at least three
closure points as shown in Table 4.9. Out of 14 chainages, only one chainage was not
registered i.e CH 400. Unfortunately, the FDC line remained below the criteria line
along the profile line in which the closure depth does not exist. According to Table 4.9,
the average hc is recorded as -3.47 m below MLW and lies 445 m from the baseline. The
closure depth is found to be deeper compared to closure depth before the installation of
PEM system and the distance of the closure point is further seaward. This positive sign
indicates that the PEM system is functioning to accrete more sand on the nearshore zone.
Table 4.9: Closure Depth for 2007 Post-Project Profile
FDC hc (Mac 2007 –July 2007)
Chainage
hci,
(m)
LSD
hcm,
(m)
LSD
hco,
(m)
LSD
Effective hc,
(m)
MLW
CH 100
na
-5.15
na
CH 200
na
-5.25
na
CH 300
-2.53
-3.85
na
CH 400
na
na
na
CH 500
-3.65
na
na
CH 600
-1.45
na
na
CH 700
-1.35
na
na
CH 800
-3.85
-5.15
-6.85
CH 900
-9.15
na
na
CH 1000
-2.75
na
na
CH 1100
-2.75
na
na
CH 1200
na
-6.65
na
CH 1300
-2.05
na
na
CH 1400
-2.85
na
na
Average
-3.24
-5.55
-6.85
hci = innershore closure depth; hcm = middleshore closure depth;
na=not available
Distance
Offshore,
(m)
-4.49
750
-4.59
730
-3.19
480
na
na
-2.99
340
-0.79
120
-0.69
120
-6.19
760
-8.49
1030
-2.09
200
-2.09
210
-5.99
590
-1.39
220
-2.19
240
-3.47
445
hco=outershore closure depth;
126
4.14
Comparison of hc between Pre-Project Condition and Post-Project
Condition
Figure 4.59 and Figure 4.60 shows the summary of closure depths and closure
points at the study area. These plots had been obtained based on the effective hc referring
to the Table 4.7, Table 4.8 and Table 4.9 as shown previously. It is useful to note that the
point in which crosses the 0 m depth indicated that there is no closure depth found at the
particular chainage. Generally, the closure depth for the pre-project condition was found
to be shallower at an average depth of -2.58 m MLW with a distance of 319 m from the
baseline. This result indicates that erosion is occurring. After one year installation of
PEM system and beach nourishment, the closure depth tends to be deeper and the
closure point is further seaward. This phenomena indicates that the sediment has started
to moved seawards to find its equilibrium profile. After 2 years installation program, the
significant changes in bed elevation which depend on waves, tides and other
hydrodynamics actions was observed at most of the chainages showing that the active
movement of sediment is occurring. Consequently, more closure points were not found
due to this process. After three years (2007), it is found that the beach is more stable
where the closure point was recorded to be at most of the chainage and no significant
changes in bed elevation was observed. Overall, the closure depth tends to be deeper and
the closure point is further seawards. However, it is still early to conclude that the PEM
system is able to achieve its operation although the beach is looks like stable after three
years of the installation program. Further investigation and monitoring work should be
carried out to figure out whether the system is able to serve its function or not.
127
Depth of Closure at Teluk Cempedak beach, Kuantan
2
1
0
Depth , m (MLW)
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
Chainage, m
2003
2005
2006
2007
Figure 4.59: Closure Depth at Teluk Cempedak beach, Kuantan
Closure Point at Teluk Cempedak beach, Kuantan
1200
Distance Seaward, m
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
Chainage, m
2003
2005
2006
2007
Figure 4.60: Closure Point at Teluk Cempedak beach, Kuantan
128
Estimation of Predictive Closure Depth by Hellemeier’s Equation
4.15
In order to determine the offshore limit of an active zone where yearly onshore
and offshore cycle of sediment movement occurs, Hallemeier (1978) proposed to use an
extreme wave height, which exceeds 12 hours per year from the distribution for
cumulative wave heights and corresponding wave period. H 0.137 wave was determined in
this study as described in section 4.5. These wave parameters are used to fit into
equation 2.2 and 2.5 in order to obtain the predictive closure depth. Here, equation 2.2
and 2.5 are re-written as follows:-
hc = 2.28He – 68.5 (He2/gTe2)
(2.2)
hc = 1.57He
(2.5)
Where;
Te = wave period associated with He which can be approximated from the annual mean
significant wave height H,
Table 4.10: hc from Simplified Equation Compared with Effective hc 2007
Hellemeier‟s Equation
1.57He
2.28He – 68.5 (He2/gTe2)
Average
Hs 0.137
(m)
3.53
3.53
-
Te
(sec)
7.85
-
Predicted hc
(m)
5.54
6.64
6.09
hc 2007
(m)
3.47
3.47
3.47
Table 4.10 above describes that the predictive equations over-predict the
effective hc value. The effective hc for beach profile 2007 was chosen due to the
% diff.
59.65
91.35
75.50
129
insignificant bed elevation changes along the profile survey. The average hc or hc-1yr
based on the algorithm used above was found to be -3.47 m MLW. The simplest
relationship can thus be formed between this and the UKMO offshore wave, H 0.137;
hc / H 0.137
= 3.47/3.53
= 0.98
Therefore, equating the above to hc
hc
=
0.98 H 0.137
In conclusion, this relationship may be applied at any location along the east
coast of Malaysia to predict the depth of closure for a beach restoration project where a
combination of PEM system and beach nourishment is used but applicable only to sites
with similar wave climate and beach condition.
130
4.16
PEM Effectiveness Evaluation
The main objective to apply the Pressure Equalization Module System at Teluk
Cempedak beach area is to bring the beach back to a state where it can serve its purpose
as a high standard tourist and recreational beach with good sand quality. Therefore, in
order to determine whether the combination of beach nourishment and PEM system is
able to serve its function or not, an evaluation to this system has been carried out. Thus,
there are two ways to evaluate the effectiveness of the PEM system i.e estimation for
total sand volume and beach level. The 2004 survey data is used as a baseline to
determine the efficiency of this system. A comparison of results for year 2005 till 2007
has been carried out with reference to the 2004 baseline survey. It is useful to note that,
the PEM pipes were installed at CH 400 to CH 1300.
4.16.1 Total Sand Volume Changes
Figure 4.61 shows the total sand volume at the study area. The average sand
volume is relatively higher within chainage 400 m until chainage 1200 m. Generally, it
is proven that the PEM system is apparently functioning to gain and retains more sand
on the beach whereby the said chainage was installed with the PEM pipes. As for
information, data for the year 2004 is a baseline for this study whereby new sand had
been added on the beach for the beach nourishment purpose. From the bar chart also, for
the year 2005, it is shown that the volume of sand has been dropped at most of the
chainage except for CH 600 and CH 1000. This result indicates that the sand had moved
seaward to create an equilibrium profile. At CH 1300, it is shown that the biggest drop
of amount of sand after 1 year installation of PEM and beach nourishment indicates that
the erosion still occurs. As for information, CH 1300 is located near the headland of
131
Bukit Tembeling. Therefore, this confirms the fact that erosion occurs at areas where
wave energy is concentrated at headlands. However, after two years, the sand volume
has shown a slight increment at most of the chainages except at CH 900.This shows that
the beach starts gaining sand back. Furthermore, it can be seen that the total sand keeps
increasing in the year 2007 at all chainages except for the chainage located at the
southern part of the beach i.e CH 900 to CH 1300. This trend qualifies that the accretion
of sand is occurring at the northern part of the beach while erosion process is
experienced at the southern part of the beach.
Total Sand Volume (m3)
250
200
Sand Volume, m 3/m
150
100
50
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
-50
-100
-150
Chainage, m
2004
2005
2006
2007
Figure 4.61 : Total Sand Volume (m3)
Based on Table 4.11, the total sand volume during the installation of PEM
system (2004) and beach nourishment is about 1766 m3. Unfortunately, the values
decreased to 1556 m3 after one year of installation of PEM system (2005) and
subsequently decrease to 1540 m3 in year 2006. This indicates that the volume of sand is
132
lost along the beach. However, in year 2007, the total sand volume increases describing
that the system starts functioning to bring back the sand to the beach and the beach is
now stable. Generally, the total sand loss is recorded to be decreasing from -245 m3 in
year 2005 to -102.38 m3 in year 2006 and subsequently decrease to - 81.38 m3 in year
2007, showing that the rate of erosion is decreasing. Consequently, the total sand gain is
increasing from 35 m3 to 178.50 m3 after 3 years installation of PEM and beach
nourishment (see Table 4.11). Overall, this result reveals that the PEM system is able to
stimulate accretion of sand and slow down the erosion process. However, further
investigation has been carried out to look into detail at which areas of the beach are
benefiting from the PEM system.
Table 4.11: Total Sand Volume and Sand Gain or Loss at the Study Area
Chainage
2004
2005
Total Sand Volume (m3)
2005-2004
2006-2005
2006
Loss/Gain
Loss/Gain
-31.50
11.38
-37.63
-4.38
7.88
-38.50
10.50
-38.50
-13.13
-21.88
138.25
1.75
-24.50
170.63
19.25
6.13
223.13
-2.63
-25.38
155.75
9.63
-4.38
143.50
1.75
-20.13
166.25
-6.13
2.63
189.00
9.63
0.00
200.38
-4.38
-2.63
187.25
9.63
-110.25
56.00
24.50
15.75
-70.88
10.50
1540.00
-245.00
-102.38
+ 35.00
+ 86.63
100
80.50
49.00
200
50.75
46.38
300
-38.88
-25.38
400
158.38
136.50
500
175.38
151.38
600
219.63
225.75
700
171.50
146.13
800
146.13
141.75
900
192.50
172.38
1000
176.75
179.38
1100
204.75
204.75
1200
180.25
177.63
1300
141.75
31.50
1400
-97.13
-81.38
Total
1765.75 1555.75
Loss
Gain
Net
-210
Loss/Gain
CH 100, CH200, CH300 & CH 1400 = NO PEM;
CH 400 to CH 1300 = PEM with Beach Nourishment
-15.75
56.88
84.88
-17.50
146.13
182.88
230.13
161.00
145.25
153.13
171.50
199.50
161.00
32.38
-70.00
1637.13
-
2007-2006
Loss/Gain
45.50
77.00
21.00
7.88
12.25
7.00
5.25
1.75
-13.13
-17.50
-0.88
-26.25
-23.63
0.88
-81.38
+ 178.50
-
+ 97.12
2007
133
Figure 4.62 till Figure 4.64 represent the sand gain and loss along the stretch of
the beach with the PEM system. It is shown that the losses of sand in year 2005 is
greater than year 2006 which gives volumes of about -209.1 m3 and -13.14 m3
respectively. This result reveals that the sand is less likely to wash back to the sea and
the sediment is readily deposited on the beach. However, after 3 years (2007), the losses
of the sand increase to -81.38 m3. This phenomena indicates that the sand has moved
away due to several factors such as washed or blown offshore and drifting away
alongshore. From the literature, sand often shifts alongshore with change in wave
climate in a pocket bay. Visually, the result is a shift in the profile of the beach in both
the horizontal and vertical. Although such changes are commonly associated with
monsoon (erosion) and inter-monsoon (accretion), in reality, they occur any time of year
in response to stormy or fair weather. Accordingly, the sand gain is relatively higher in
2006 which is about 76.14 m3 compared to year 2005 and 2007 in which equals to 8.75
m3 and 34.13 m3.
In term of sand volume distribution pattern, in year 2005, there is loss of sand
volume at most of the chainage (see Figure 4.62). This scenario may happen due to
several factors: (i) losses of the sand are due to interruption of longshore transport on the
up-drift side, (ii) reduction of sediment source, (iii) storm surges and (iv) effect of wave
reflection and refraction. On the other hand, the distribution pattern of the sand in 2006
shows that the sand is losing and gaining alternately along the beach. However, it
revealed that the net sand gains is relatively higher that net sand losses as shown in
Figure 4.63. This phenomena indicates that the beach is unstable after 2 years of the
installation program. After 3 years, where the beach is more stable, it is obviously seen
that the accretion of sand occurring at the northern part while from CH 900 towards the
south, the erosion process occurs instead (see Figure 4.64). This result reaffirmed that
the bathymetry survey in April 2003 showed that the slope is steeper at the southern part
of the beach. This indicates that this part is more reflective to the waves, thus leading to
erosion. Therefore, the sand has drifted to the northern part of the beach where the
134
accretion of sand occurs. A summary of the change in sand volume distribution pattern is
provided in Figure 4.65.
Sand Gain/Loss after 1 Year Installation of PEM System
20
+8.75 m3
0
400
500
600
700
800
900
Sand Volume, m3
-20
1000
1100
1200
1300
-209.1 m3
-40
-60
-80
Net = -200.4 m3
-100
-120
Chainage, m
2005
Figure 4.62: Sand Gain and Loss for Year 2005
Sand Gain/Loss after 2 Year Installation of PEM System
30
25
Net = +63 m3
Sand Volume, m 3
20
15
+76.14 m3
10
5
0
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
-5
-13.14 m3
-10
Chainage, m
2006
Figure 4.63: Sand Gain and Loss for Year 2006
1300
135
Sand Gain/Loss after 3 Year Installation of PEM System
15
10
+34.13 m3
Sand Volume, m3
5
0
400
500
600
-5
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
-81.38 m3
-10
-15
-20
Net = -47.25 m3
-25
-30
Chainage, m
2007
Figure 4.64: Sand Gain and Loss for Year 2007
Summary of Sand Volume Distribution Pattern
100
Sand Volume, m3
50
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
-50
-100
-150
Chainage, m
2005
2006
2007
Figure 4.65: Sand Volume Distribution Pattern
1600
136
4.16.2 Beach Level Changes
Figure 4.66 shows the average beach level 70 m wide for CH 100 till CH 1400.
Results showed the same trend as for total sand volume changes, whereby nourished
areas installed with PEM system have indicated higher beach level compared to areas
with no PEM and beach nourishment.
In term of temporal distribution, in year 2005, the beach level is decreasing at
most of the chainages where the drastic drop in bed level could be seen at CH 1300 from
2 m to 0.45 m height. This is because CH 1300 is located near the headland of Bukit
Tembeling where wave energy is concentrated at this area and it is a byproduct of wave
refraction. However, in year 2006, the beach level tends to increase except for CH 900
and CH 1100. In the following year (2007), the distribution pattern shows that the beach
level is slightly higher in the northern half of the beach while the southern part is still
experiencing erosion where the beach level shows a slightly decreased value.
Average Beach Level 70 m wide
4
3
Beach Level, m
2
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
-1
-2
Chainage, m
2004
2005
2006
2007
Figure 4.66: Average Beach Level 70 m wide
137
4.16.3 Distribution Pattern of Beach Level Changes
Figure 4.67 until Figure 4.71 shows the cross-section profile at CH 400 until CH
1300 where the PEM pipes were installed. It can be observed that the beach elevation is
higher than the baseline level in 2004. The upper part of the beach is convex unlike
earlier (2003), where the beach was low and concave. This trend indicates that the
system contributes a significant accretion of sand and thus creates a higher beach level at
about 10 m to 55 m towards the sea. However, this trend can only be seen at a certain
chainage. As can be observed in Figure 4.66 to Figure 4.70 below, the increment in bed
elevation from year 2005 to year 2007 can be observed at CH 400 until CH 800 while at
CH 900 towards the south, the bed elevation is decreasing. This shows that the accretion
of sand is only occurring at the northern half and the beach is eroding at the southern
half.
Beach Level at CH 400
Beach Level at CH 500
5.00
7.00
6.00
4.00
5.00
3.00
2003
2004 (Baseline)
2005
2006
1.00
2007
Beach Level (m)
Beach Level (m)
4.00
2.00
2003
3.00
2004 (Baseline)
2005
2.00
2006
2007
1.00
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.00
0
-1.00
10
20
30
40
50
-1.00
-2.00
Distance Seaward (m)
-2.00
Distance Seaward (m)
Figure 4.67: Beach Level at CH 400 and CH 500
60
70
80
138
Beach Level at CH 600
Beach Level at CH 700
7.00
6.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
2003
3.00
2004 (Baseline)
2005
2.00
2006
2007
Beach Level (m)
Beach Level (m)
4.00
3.00
2003
2004 (Baseline)
2.00
2005
2006
2007
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
80
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-1.00
-1.00
-2.00
-2.00
Distance Seaward (m)
Distance Seaward (m)
Figure 4.68: Beach Level at CH 600 and CH 700
Beach Level at CH 900
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2003
2004 (Baseline)
2005
2006
1.00
2007
Beach Level (m)
Beach Level (m)
Beach Level at CH 800
5.00
0.00
2.00
2003
2004 (Baseline)
2005
2006
1.00
2007
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
-1.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-1.00
-2.00
-2.00
Distance Seaward (m)
Distance Seaward (m)
Figure 4.69: Beach Level at CH 800 and CH 900
Beach Level at CH 1100
6.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
2003
2004 (Baseline)
2.00
2005
2006
2007
1.00
0.00
3.00
2003
2004 (Baseline)
2.00
2005
2006
2007
1.00
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
-1.00
-2.00
Beach Level (m)
Beach Level (m)
Beach Level at CH 1000
6.00
60
70
80
0
10
20
30
40
50
-1.00
Distance Seaward (m)
-2.00
Distance Seaward (m)
Figure 4.70: Beach Level at CH 1000 and CH 1100
60
70
80
139
Beach Level at CH 1300
Beach Level at CH 1200
6.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
2003
2004 (Baseline)
2005
2006
1.00
2007
Beach Level (m)
Beach Level (m)
3.00
2.00
2003
2.00
2004 (Baseline)
2005
1.00
2006
2007
0.00
0
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-1.00
-2.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
Distance Seaward (m)
Distance Seaward (m)
Figure 4.71: Beach Level at CH 1200 and CH 1300
4.16.4 PEM Efficiency
For this study, the basic formula in determining the efficiency of the system is
used. The formula is described as follows:-
Beach Level at Year (n+1) – Beach Level at Year (n)
Efficiency, (%) =
Beach Level at Year (n)
(4.1)
The PEM efficiency was then observed at CH 400 till CH 1300 across the Teluk
Cempedak beach in terms of beach elevation as illustrated in Figure 4.72 until Figure
4.76. Similar to the evaluation for total sand volume, the beach level for the year 2004 is
the baseline for this study. It is found that the efficiency of the system can only be seen
at the northern part of the beach i.e for CH 400 till CH 800 whereby the efficiency was
140
recorded to be increasing from year 2005 to year 2007 (see Table 4.12). In contrast,
although the beach level is higher compared to the baseline, the efficiency of the system
is decreasing from year 2005 to year 2007 and this happened at CH 900 till CH 1300.
Only at CH 1000 and CH 1200, the efficiency was observed to increase from year 2005
to year 2006 but the value suddenly drops in year 2007. At CH1300, no efficiency was
recorded. Similar to earlier finding in sand volume changes described in section 4.16.1,
it can be reaffirmed that the accretion of sand only occurrs at the northern part of the
beach while erosion is still occurring at the southern part. This shows that the northern
part is benefiting from the PEM system while the other part is still experiencing erosion.
Table 4.12: PEM Efficiency
Chainage
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
2005
43.48
25.00
56.52
25.93
72.22
12.50
34.62
38.46
43.38
-233.33
Efficiency (%)
2006
60.87
50.00
60.87
25.93
77.78
9.37
50.00
34.62
52.17
-188.89
2007
73.91
66.67
60.87
25.93
83.33
3.12
42.31
15.38
17.39
-211.11
141
PEM Efficiency at CH 400
PEM Efficiency at CH 500
100.00
100.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005
-50.00
2006
2007
Efficiency, %
Efficiency, %
0.00
0
20
40
50
60
70
80
2005
2006
2007
-100.00
-150.00
-150.00
-200.00
Distance Seaward (m)
30
-50.00
-100.00
-200.00
10
Distance Seaward (m)
Figure 4.72: PEM Efficiency at CH 400 and CH 500
PEM Efficiency at CH 600
PEM Efficiency at CH 700
80.00
50.00
60.00
0.00
40.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-50.00
0.00
-20.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005
2006
-40.00
2007
-60.00
Efficiency, %
Efficiency, %
20.00
2005
-100.00
2006
2007
-150.00
-80.00
-100.00
-200.00
-120.00
-140.00
-250.00
Distance Seaward (m)
Distance Seaward (m)
Figure 4.73: PEM Efficiency at CH 600 and CH 700
PEM Efficiency at CH 800
PEM Efficiency at CH 900
150.00
50.00
100.00
0.00
50.00
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-50.00
2005
-100.00
2006
2007
-150.00
10
20
30
40
50
-250.00
2007
-200.00
Distance Seaward (m)
80
2006
-300.00
-350.00
70
2005
-100.00
-150.00
-200.00
60
-50.00
Efficiency, %
Efficiency, %
0.00
-250.00
Distance Seaward (m)
Figure 4.74: PEM Efficiency at CH 800 and CH 900
142
PEM Efficiency at CH 1100
PEM Efficiency at CH 1000
50.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-50.00
2005
2006
-100.00
2007
Efficiency, %
Efficiency, %
0.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-50.00
2005
2006
2007
-100.00
-150.00
-150.00
-200.00
-250.00
-200.00
Distance Seaward (m)
Distance Seaward (m)
Figure 4.75: PEM Efficiency at CH 1000 and CH 1100
PEM Efficiency at CH 1300
PEM Efficiency at CH 1200
150.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-50.00
2005
2006
2007
-100.00
Efficiency, %
Efficiency, %
0
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
-200.00
Distance Seaward (m)
80
2007
-150.00
-250.00
70
2006
-100.00
-150.00
-200.00
60
2005
-50.00
-250.00
Distance Seaward (m)
Figure 4.76: PEM Efficiency at CH 1200 and CH 1300
143
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Introduction
The determination of the depth of closure and the efficiency of the Pressure
Equalization Module (PEM) system has been investigated in this study. The results
presented indicate that the Teluk Cempedak beach is now more stable and the beach area
is wider due to the beach nourishment and the PEM system. In order to determine the
required amount of quantity of sand to be filled for beach nourishment, the
determination of closure depth is essential as a basic requirement in order to define the
specific location to place the toe of the beach fill.
144
In this study, the depth of closure for the shoreline of Teluk Cempedak beach,
Kuantan was determined by analyzing four sets of profile surveys. The profile surveys
were analyzed using the most widely used method recommended by Nicholls (1998) i.e
Fixed Depth Change (FDC) method. Based on the accuracies of the hydrographic
survey, the criteria line of 0.25 m was chosen. The algorithm based on this method was
also used to define the multiple point of closure depth along the profile lines as well as to
obtain the effective closure depth at the study area. The results presented indicate that
the closure depth before the installation of PEM system is considerably lower. The
significant bed elevation changes appear along the profile line especially in PEM areas
after two year installation of PEM system reveals that the PEM system started to develop
its function to accumulate more sand on the nearshore zone. However, the bottom
elevation shows a positive response whereby after three year of the installation, the
results qualify that the beach is more stable with the closure depth value to be deeper and
the location of the depth is further seaward at the southern part of the beach. However,
this proves otherwise for the northern part of the beach. This phenomena may happen
due to the effect of wave reflection and refraction process from the headland which
located at the southern part of the beach.
Besides, the depth of closure was also calculated using the Hallemeier equation
and both results were compared. The predictive equations over predict the closure depth
up to 76 % when compared to measured hc. However, Helllemeier equation is still
adaptable in predicting an upper limit of closure depth. The simplest relationship to
determine the closure depth at the study area was developed and presented as:
hc
= 0.98 H0.137
This relationship is recommended to be applied at any location along the east
coast of Malaysia to predict the depth of closure for a beach restoration project where a
145
combination of PEM system and beach nourishment is used but applicable only to sites
with similar wave climate and beach condition.
The final finding of this study is the evaluation of the effectiveness of the PEM
system. Two methods were used to describe the effectiveness of this system in terms of
total sand volume and beach level. Generally, the total sand volume is relatively higher
within the PEM areas. It is shows that the PEM system is apparently functioning to gain
and retains more sand on the beach whereby the said chainage was installed with the
PEM pipes. Overall, the total sand loss is recorded to have decreased from -245 m3/m in
year 2005 to -102.38 m3/m in 2006 and subsequently decreased to - 81.38 m3/m in year
2007 which shows that the rate of erosion is decreasing. Consequently, the total sand
gain is increasing from 35 m3/m to 178.50 m3/m after 3 years installation of PEM system
and beach nourishment. This result reveals that the PEM system is able to stimulate
accretion of sand and yet slow down the erosion process. However, further investigation
has been conducted to look at into detail at which areas of the beach are benefiting from
the PEM system. In terms of sand volume distribution pattern, in year 2005, the sand
volume is losing at most of the chainages. In contrast, the distribution pattern of the sand
in year 2006 shows that the sand is losing and gaining alternately over the chainages.
However, it revealed that the net sand gains are relatively higher than the net sand losses.
This phenomena indicates that the beach is unstable after 2 years of the installation
program. After 3 years, it is obviously seen that accretion of sand has been occurring at
the northern part, while starting from CH 900 towards the south, erosion is taking place
instead.
Besides, results of beach level evaluation shows the same trend as for total sand
volume, whereby nourished areas installed with PEM system indicated that the beach
level is higher compared to areas with no PEM and beach nourishment. Generally, this
positive sign indicated that the PEM system is building sand on the beach and
consequently higher beach levels were achieved. However, in terms of spatial
distribution, after three years installation of PEM system and beach nourishment,
146
accretion of sand could be found at the northern part of the beach while erosion still
occurred at the southern part of the beach. This result qualifies that the PEM system is
benefiting only at certain parts of the Teluk Cempedak beach.
Based on the distribution pattern of bed elevation over the chainage, generally,
the upper part of the beach is convex unlike earlier i.e before the installation of PEM
system, where the beach was low and concave. This phenomena indicates that the
system contributes to a significant accretion of sand and thus created a higher beach
level at about 10 m to 55 m towards the sea.However, this trend can only be seen at a
certain chainage. The increment in bed elevation from year 2005 to year 2007 can only
be found at CH 400 till CH 800 while at CH 900 towards the south, the bed elevation is
decreasing. This shows that the accretion of sand is only occurring at the north part and
the beach is eroding at the southern part.
The PEM efficiency was observed at CH 400 till CH 1300 across the Teluk
Cempedak beach in term of beach elevation. It is found that the efficiency of the system
can only be seen at the northern part of the beach i.e for CH 400 till CH 800 whereby the
efficiency was recorded to be increasing from year 2005 to year 2007. In contrast,
although the beach level is higher compared to the 2004 baseline, the efficiency of the
system is found to be decreasing from year 2005 to year 2007 and this happened at CH
900 until CH 1300. Only at CH 1000 and CH 1200, the efficiency was found to be
increased from year 2005 to year 2006 but the value suddenly dropped in year 2007 and
the efficiency was not found at CH 1300 at all. Again, these results reaffirmed the result
obtained for the sand volume evaluation, where accretion of the sand only occurred at
the northern part of the beach while erosion still occurred at the southern part of the
beach. This shows that the northern areas are benefiting from the PEM system while the
other part is still experiencing the erosion process.
147
In conclusion, based on the available four years record of data, it was discovered
that only certain parts of the beach are benefiting from the PEM system, whereas, some
parts are still experiencing erosion.
5.2
Recommendations
This study provided a better overall understanding of the feasibility of the PEM
system for the rehabilitation of Teluk Cempedak beach. Despite the PEM system having
successfully achieved its operation in certain parts of the beach, encouragement should
be given to review a better understanding of this system. Thus, further improvements
and recommendations are suggested to enhance this research such as:-
5.2.1
Criteria of Limit Line
The analysis above has used only 25 cm closure criterion associated with
hydrographic survey accuracy. Other criterion can be applied to figure out more reliable
results and a comparison between two limit lines is recommended.
148
5.2.2
Standard Deviation Depth Change (SDDC) Method
The analysis of profile survey in this study was only based on Fixed Depth
Change Method (FDC). Another method to determine the closure depth from profile
survey i.e Standard Deviation Depth Change (SDDC) method was introduced by Kraus
et al (1998). This method involves plotting the SDDC against distance seaward of the
profile origin for each measured profile. The hc is thus the point where the SDDC
reduces to a constant, non-zero value. It is recommended that both FDC and SDDC be
applied in this study in order to obtain the effective closure depth. Comparison between
both methods can also be done.
5.2.3
Profile Survey
Four years record of profile survey was used in this study. Basically, in order to
monitor the efficiency of any system, at least five years record of profile survey after the
installation of a system should be used. One year record of profile survey before the
installation of a system and five years record of profile survey is adequate to investigate
the effectiveness of a system as well as to look at the response of the beach. Therefore, it
is highly recommended that the Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia to
continue the monitoring survey work. It is also recommended that the profile lines
should be extended up to 3000 m seaward.
149
5.2.4
Predictive Formula for Each Chainage
The analysis of profile survey in this study only considered the measurement of
closure depth for each year and compared with the predictive equation by Hellemeier. It
is useful if the predictive equation can be analyzed for every chainage to compare with
the measured closure depth. To implement this, analysis of wave data for every single
chainage should be performed. This analysis would require a good set of wave data
whereby the wave data collection should be carried out.
150
REFERENCES
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Beach Nourishment (2002), A Review of
the Biological and Physical Impacts. ASMFC Habitat Management Series , 7
November 2002; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: Washington D.C.
Birkemeier, W.A (1985). Field data on seaward limit of profile change. Journal of
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 11(3), 598-602
Brunn, P. (1954). Coast Erosion and the Development of Beach Profiles. US Army
Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, Tech. Memo No. 44
Coastal Engineering Division, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia (2004)
Annual Report 2004.
Coastal Engineering Division, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia (2007)
Annual Report 2007.
Coastal Engineering Division, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia (2007).
Detailed Design Report of Projek Perintis Pemuliharaan Pantai Pelancongan
menggunakan Pressure Equalization Module (PEM) di Teluk Cempedak,
Kuantan, Pahang. Report prepared by MRCB
Dean, R.G., Healy, T.R. and Dommerholt, A .P. (1993). A “blind – folded” test of
equilibrium beach profile concepts with New Zealand data. Mar. Geol., 109:253 266
Dean, R.G., and Dalrymple, R.A. (2002). Coastal Processes with Engineering
Applications. Cambridge University Press.
Dean, R.G. (2002). Beach Nourishment Theory and Practice. Advanced Series on Ocean
Engineering Volume 18; World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. Singapore
Emery, K.O., (1961). A simple method of measuring beach profiles. Limnology and
Oceanography, v. 6, p. 90-93.
151
Eco Shore International (2006). Pressure Equalizating Modules (PEM). FDEP
Workshop February 23, 2006.
Ferreira, O. (1998). Depth of Closure Variability through Time as a Function of Wave
Action. FCMA/CIACOMAR/CIMA, Campus de Gambelas, Faro, Portugal.
Ghazali, NHM. (2004). Beach Nourishment and its Impact on Holiday Beaches; paper
presented at „Seminar on Coastal Resources and Tourism‟ at Bukit Merah, Perak
organized by Universiti Utara Malaysia; 21-22 December 2004.
Ghazali, NHM and Ong, HL. (2005). Erosion Protection of Mangrove Coastlines; paper
presented at Workshop „Lessons Learned in Mangrove Rehabilitation‟ organized
by Forestry Research Institute of Malaysia; Sungai Petani, Kedah, June 2005
Ghazali, NHM. (2005). New Innovation and Technologies in Coastal Rehabilitation.
International Conference on Innovations and Technologies in Oceanography for
Sustainable Development. Kuala Lumpur 26-28 November 2005.
Hallermeier, R. (1978). Uses for a calculated limit depth to beach erosion. Proceeding
16th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE 1493-1512.
Hallermeier, R. (1981). Seaward Limit of Significant Sand Transport by Waves and
Annual Zonation for Seasonal Profiles. Coastal Engineering Technical Aid, 81-2,
23p.
Hinton, C. and Nicholls, R.J. (1998). Spatial and temporal behavior of depth of closure
along the Holland coast. In: Proc. 26th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE,
pp. 2913-2925
Jakobsen, P. and Brogger, C. (2007). Coastal Protection Based On Pressure Equalization
Modules (PEM). Journal of Coastal Research, (Proceedings of the 9th
International Coastal Symposium), Gold Coast, Australia.
Jakobsen, P. (2002). Pressure Equalization Modules for Environmentally Friendly
Coastal Protection. A briefing note submitted to Dept. of Irrigation & Drainage
Malaysia.
152
Komar, P.D. (1998). Beach Processes and Sedimentation . (2nd ed.) Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Kraus, N. C., and Wise, R. A. (1993). Simulation of January 4, 1992, Storm Erosion at
Ocean City, Maryland. Shore & Beach 61 (l), 34-411.
Larson, M., Kraus, N.C. and Wise, R.A. (1999). Equilibrium Beach Profiles Under
Breaking and Non- Breaking Waves. Coastal Engineering, 36:59 – 85.
Malaysian Resource Corporation Berhad (2006). Evaluation Report ,Spring 2006 Teluk
Cempedak, Malaysia : Beach Nourishment combined with PEM System; Progress
Report.
Nor Hisham Mohd Ghazali (2007). Determination of Depth of Closure Along the
Kelantan Coast. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; Master Thesis
National Research Council (NRC) (1995). Beach Nourishment and Protection. National
Academy Press. Washington, D.C.
Nicholls C. Kraus, Dr. Magnus Larson and Randall A. Wise. (1998). Depth of Closure in
Beach-fill Design; Coastal Engineering Technical Note.
Nicholls, R.J., Birkemeier, W.A., and Hallermeier, R.J. (1996). Application of the depth
of closure concept, 25th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Book
of Abstracts, Paper No. 147, 294-295.
Oxford University Press (1998): DK Illustrated Oxford Dictionary. New York.
Richard, S. and John, R.C. (1997). Coastal Stabilization. Advanced Series on Ocean
Engineering (Volume 14); World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. Singapore
Robertson, W., Finkl, C.W., and Campbell, T.J. (2008). Determination of Event Depth
of Closure (EDOC) for the South Florida Atlantic Coast Using Airborne Laser
Bathymetry.Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc.
153
Skagen Innovation Centre (2000). Environmentally friendly coastal protection by
Pressure Equalization Modules. SIC Skagen Innovation Center, Denmark
Stauble, D. K., Garcia, A. W., Kraus, N. C., Grosskopf, W. G., and Bass, G. P. (1992).
Beach Nourishment Project Response and Design Evaluation, Ocean City,
Maryland; Report 1, 1988 1992,Technical Report CERC-93-13, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (1984). Shore Protection Manual Volume I., Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Website: Coastal Engineering Division, Department of Irrigation and Drainage,
Malaysia. Documents reviewed on 21 July 2008.
Website: www.brynmawr.edu/geology/dbarber/ Documents reviewed on September
2008
154
APPENDIX A
PROFILE SURVEYS FROM THE COASTLINE OF PANTAI TELUK
CEMPEDAK KUANTAN 2003, 2005, 2006, AND 2007
CH 100
Distance
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
57
53.5
50
45.8
41.2
37.3
34.4
30.3
26.4
20.2
14.6
6.4
3
1
0.2
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-1
-1.1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.3
-1.3
-1.2
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.4
-1.4
-1.4
Profile 2005
57
53.5
50
45.8
41.2
37.3
34.4
30.3
26.4
11.8
8.9
3.1
3.35
2.55
0.6
-0.2
-0.45
-0.75
-1.15
-1.3
-1.35
-1.5
-1.55
-1.6
-1.45
-1.5
-1.45
-1.55
-1.55
-1.5
-1.5
-1.5
Profile 2006
57
53.5
50
45.8
41.2
37.3
34.4
30.3
26.4
20.3
14.6
6.55
3.15
0.75
0.25
0.05
-0.2
-0.45
-0.65
-0.9
-1.05
-1.15
-1.3
-1.4
-1.55
-1.55
-1.7
-1.7
-1.7
-1.7
-1.7
-1.75
Profile 2007
57
53.5
50
45.8
41.2
37.3
34.4
30.3
26.4
20.3
14.6
6.4
2.2
1.1
0.4
0.05
-0.2
-0.55
-0.8
-1.05
-1.2
-1.25
-1.3
-1.3
-1.35
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.25
-1.25
-1.25
-1.25
155
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
-1.5
-1.5
-1.5
-1.6
-1.6
-1.7
-1.8
-1.8
-1.9
-2
-2.1
-2.2
-2.3
-2.4
-2.4
-2.6
-2.8
-3
-3.1
-3.3
-3.1
-3.1
-3.2
-3.3
-3.3
-3.3
-3.5
-3.5
-3.7
-3.8
-4
-4.2
-4.2
-4.5
-4.5
-4.7
-4.9
-5
-5.1
-5.2
-1.5
-1.5
-1.45
-1.5
-1.55
-1.65
-1.75
-1.9
-2
-2.05
-2.1
-2.1
-2.2
-2.45
-2.6
-2.75
-2.85
-3.25
-3.55
-3.6
-3.6
-3.5
-3.55
-3.6
-3.55
-3.6
-3.7
-3.85
-3.95
-4.15
-4.3
-4.4
-4.6
-4.75
-4.85
-4.9
-5.05
-5.2
-5.35
-5.5
-1.6
-1.55
-1.55
-1.5
-1.5
-1.4
-1.25
-1.2
-1.35
-1.45
-1.55
-1.5
-1.55
-1.8
-2.15
-2.45
-2.75
-3.05
-3.3
-3.3
-3.35
-3.4
-3.4
-3.4
-3.45
-3.7
-3.7
-3.8
-3.85
-3.95
-4.05
-4.25
-4.5
-4.55
-4.6
-4.65
-4.85
-4.9
-5.1
-5.25
-1.3
-1.25
-1.3
-1.3
-1.3
-1.35
-1.4
-1.5
-1.65
-1.8
-2
-2.1
-2.3
-2.5
-2.65
-2.8
-2.95
-3.15
-3.3
-3.3
-3.4
-3.4
-3.3
-3.4
-3.45
-3.55
-3.6
-3.75
-3.9
-4
-4.15
-4.25
-4.35
-4.5
-4.55
-4.7
-4.85
-5.15
-5.35
-5.45
156
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
-5.4
-5.6
-5.7
-6
-6
-6.1
-6.1
-6.2
-6.3
-6.4
-6.5
-6.6
-6.7
-6.8
-6.8
-7
-7.1
-7.1
-7.3
-7.4
-7.5
-7.6
-7.8
-7.8
-7.9
-8
-8.1
-8.2
-8.3
-8.4
-8.4
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8
-8.8
-9.1
-9
-9
-9
-5.6
-5.75
-5.8
-5.95
-6
-6.1
-6.3
-6.4
-6.5
-6.6
-6.7
-6.75
-6.9
-7.05
-7.15
-7.2
-7.35
-7.45
-7.55
-7.75
-7.85
-7.95
-8.05
-8.15
-8.25
-8.35
-8.5
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8
-8.9
-8.9
-8.8
-8.85
-9
-9.05
-9.15
-9.25
-9.25
-9.25
-5.3
-5.5
-5.55
-5.65
-5.8
-5.9
-5.95
-6.05
-6.3
-6.45
-6.6
-6.7
-6.75
-6.85
-7.05
-7.1
-7.15
-7.35
-7.4
-7.5
-7.6
-7.75
-7.95
-8
-8.2
-8.35
-8.5
-8.65
-8.7
-8.7
-8.7
-8.75
-8.85
-8.9
-9
-9.05
-9.05
-9.1
-9.1
-9.15
-5.5
-5.6
-5.75
-5.75
-5.95
-6.1
-6.25
-6.3
-6.4
-6.5
-6.55
-6.7
-6.85
-7
-7.15
-7.25
-7.35
-7.5
-7.6
-7.7
-7.7
-7.8
-8
-8.05
-8.2
-8.3
-8.35
-8.5
-8.6
-8.7
-8.75
-8.8
-8.85
-8.95
-8.95
-9.05
-9.15
-9.1
-9.15
-9.3
157
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.4
-9.45
-9.55
-9.65
CH 200
Distance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
-9.2
-9.2
-9.25
-9.25
-9.25
-9.25
-9.35
-9.4
-9.35
-9.35
-9.35
-9.4
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
50.3
49.3
45.4
41.4
37.7
34.1
30.8
27.5
23.2
19.1
12.9
5.95
3.45
1.9
0.85
0.1
-0.35
-0.85
-1.05
-1.2
-1.3
-1.5
-1.6
-1.7
-1.9
-2
Profile 2005
50.3
49.3
45.4
41.4
37.7
34.1
30.8
27.5
23.3
19.2
12.9
4.65
1.6
0.8
0.2
-0.4
-0.9
-1.15
-1.4
-1.65
-1.85
-2
-2.05
-2.15
-2.2
-2.2
Profile 2006
50.3
49.3
45.4
41.4
37.7
34.1
30.8
27.5
23.3
19.2
12.9
6
3.5
1.8
0.2
-0.2
-0.45
-0.65
-0.85
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.7
-1.9
-2.05
-2.1
Profile 2007
50.3
49.3
45.4
41.4
37.7
34.1
30.8
27.5
23.3
19.2
12.9
6
3.5
1.8
0.2
-0.2
-0.5
-0.8
-1.05
-1.3
-1.6
-1.8
-1.95
-2.1
-2.1
-2.25
158
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
-2.05
-2.25
-2.25
-2.4
-2.35
-2.45
-2.5
-2.55
-2.6
-2.65
-2.6
-2.65
-2.65
-2.65
-2.7
-2.75
-2.85
-2.85
-2.9
-2.85
-3
-2.95
-3.1
-3.15
-3.15
-3.25
-3.4
-3.45
-3.45
-3.5
-3.6
-3.6
-3.7
-3.8
-3.8
-3.85
-3.95
-4.1
-4.15
-4.25
-2.25
-2.35
-2.4
-2.5
-2.45
-2.5
-2.5
-2.65
-2.7
-2.7
-2.85
-2.75
-2.8
-2.8
-2.8
-2.85
-2.85
-2.95
-2.95
-3
-2.95
-3
-3
-3.15
-3.35
-3.65
-3.95
-4.05
-4.1
-4
-3.9
-3.9
-3.9
-3.9
-4.05
-4.05
-4.1
-4.15
-4.3
-4.4
-2.15
-2.35
-2.15
-2.25
-2.25
-2.4
-2.45
-2.6
-2.55
-2.6
-2.6
-2.6
-2.7
-2.85
-2.95
-2.95
-3
-3.05
-3.05
-3
-3
-3.05
-3.2
-3.3
-3.4
-3.45
-3.5
-3.55
-3.6
-3.55
-3.7
-3.75
-3.75
-3.75
-3.85
-3.85
-4
-4
-4.1
-4.25
-2.35
-2.45
-2.35
-2.35
-2.5
-2.6
-2.65
-2.7
-2.65
-2.65
-2.7
-2.65
-2.7
-2.7
-2.75
-2.8
-2.8
-2.8
-2.85
-2.95
-3.05
-3.1
-3.15
-3.25
-3.35
-3.45
-3.45
-3.5
-3.6
-3.65
-3.75
-3.75
-3.75
-3.85
-3.95
-4
-4
-4.1
-4.15
-4.25
159
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
-4.4
-4.5
-4.75
-4.65
-4.85
-4.9
-5
-5.15
-5.25
-5.45
-5.5
-5.65
-5.75
-5.95
-6.05
-6.1
-6.2
-6.4
-6.5
-6.65
-6.65
-6.8
-6.85
-6.9
-7
-7.2
-7.25
-7.35
-7.45
-7.55
-7.7
-7.8
-7.9
-8.05
-8.1
-8.15
-8.3
-8.35
-8.45
-8.5
-4.45
-4.6
-4.75
-4.85
-4.9
-5.05
-5.2
-5.4
-5.5
-5.6
-5.7
-5.8
-5.95
-6.15
-6.2
-6.25
-6.35
-6.5
-6.6
-6.7
-6.8
-6.85
-7
-7.15
-7.15
-7.35
-7.4
-7.5
-7.65
-7.75
-7.9
-8
-8.1
-8.15
-8.3
-8.4
-8.5
-8.65
-8.7
-8.75
-4.35
-4.4
-4.55
-4.65
-4.8
-4.95
-5.05
-5.15
-5.25
-5.4
-5.5
-5.7
-5.8
-5.95
-6
-6.2
-6.25
-6.3
-6.45
-6.6
-6.7
-6.8
-6.9
-7
-7.15
-7.25
-7.3
-7.4
-7.45
-7.6
-7.7
-7.8
-8
-8.15
-8.25
-8.25
-8.35
-8.45
-8.5
-8.6
-4.35
-4.4
-4.5
-4.65
-4.75
-4.9
-5
-5.15
-5.25
-5.4
-5.5
-5.6
-5.7
-5.85
-5.95
-6.1
-6.2
-6.3
-6.4
-6.55
-6.65
-6.75
-6.85
-7
-7.05
-7.15
-7.25
-7.45
-7.45
-7.6
-7.75
-7.85
-7.95
-8.05
-8.2
-8.3
-8.35
-8.4
-8.55
-8.65
160
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-8.6
-8.65
-8.7
-8.75
-8.8
-8.9
-8.9
-9
-9
-9.05
-9.15
CH 300
Distance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
-8.8
-8.95
-9
-9.1
-9.05
-9.15
-9.2
-9.15
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.35
-9.45
-9.5
-9.55
-9.55
-9.6
-9.7
-9.65
-8.75
-8.9
-8.9
-8.9
-8.85
-8.9
-9
-9.1
-9.05
-9.05
-9.1
-9.25
-9.35
-9.3
-9.4
-9.4
-9.5
-9.5
-9.55
-9.7
-8.7
-8.75
-8.85
-8.9
-9
-9.05
-9.05
-9.1
-9.1
-9.05
-9.1
-9.15
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.45
-9.5
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
23.3
22.9
18.3
12.8
8.95
5.2
3.45
1.95
1.1
0.2
-0.1
-0.35
-0.6
-1.65
Profile 2005
23.2
22.8
18.2
12.8
8.3
3.6
2.3
2.3
1.7
0.8
0.25
-0.7
-1.3
-1.4
Profile 2006
23.2
22.8
18.2
12.8
8.3
3.6
2.3
2.3
1.7
0.85
0.75
0.4
-0.4
-0.9
Profile 2007
23.2
22.8
18.2
12.8
8.3
3.6
2.3
2.3
1.7
0.05
-0.4
-0.75
-1.15
-1.25
161
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
-1.75
-1.75
-1.7
-1.95
-2
-2.3
-2.4
-2.5
-2.75
-2.8
-2.85
-2.85
-2.95
-2.9
-2.9
-2.95
-3
-3
-3.15
-3.1
-3.1
-3.25
-3.35
-3.35
-3.55
-3.6
-3.65
-3.7
-3.75
-3.85
-3.85
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.75
-3.75
-3.9
-3.9
-4.1
-4
-1.4
-1.5
-1.75
-1.9
-2.25
-2.55
-2.6
-2.65
-2.6
-2.7
-2.7
-2.75
-2.75
-2.9
-2.85
-2.8
-2.85
-2.9
-3.15
-3.2
-3.25
-3.25
-3.25
-3.35
-3.45
-3.6
-3.7
-3.7
-3.75
-3.75
-3.85
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.85
-3.85
-3.9
-3.9
-3.95
-3.9
-1.2
-1.4
-1.65
-1.9
-2.05
-2.25
-2.45
-2.6
-2.65
-2.6
-2.65
-2.75
-2.8
-2.85
-2.9
-2.9
-3.05
-3.2
-3.25
-3.25
-3.15
-3.25
-3.35
-3.3
-3.35
-3.55
-3.65
-3.65
-3.6
-3.7
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.75
-3.85
-3.85
-3.8
-3.9
-3.95
-3.95
-1.35
-1.55
-1.8
-2.05
-2.2
-2.35
-2.4
-2.45
-2.6
-2.65
-2.7
-2.75
-2.8
-2.85
-2.85
-2.9
-2.95
-3
-3
-3
-3.1
-3.15
-3.3
-3.4
-3.45
-3.55
-3.7
-3.85
-3.9
-3.85
-3.8
-3.85
-3.85
-3.9
-3.85
-3.85
-3.9
-3.9
-3.95
-3.95
162
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
-4.1
-4.05
-4.15
-4.2
-4.25
-4.35
-4.4
-4.45
-4.5
-4.65
-4.75
-4.8
-4.85
-4.95
-5.05
-5.25
-5.35
-5.35
-5.5
-5.6
-5.65
-5.9
-5.9
-6.1
-6.15
-6.25
-6.4
-6.45
-6.55
-6.7
-6.7
-6.85
-6.85
-7.05
-7.15
-7.3
-7.35
-7.4
-7.5
-7.7
-4.05
-4.05
-4.15
-4.2
-4.25
-4.35
-4.45
-4.5
-4.55
-4.65
-4.75
-4.8
-4.95
-5
-5.1
-5.25
-5.35
-5.45
-5.55
-5.7
-5.85
-5.9
-6.05
-6.05
-6.2
-6.35
-6.45
-6.55
-6.65
-6.75
-6.85
-6.95
-7.05
-7.1
-7.2
-7.3
-7.4
-7.55
-7.6
-7.8
-4.05
-4.2
-4.2
-4.3
-4.35
-4.4
-4.35
-4.45
-4.5
-4.55
-4.6
-4.75
-4.9
-4.95
-5
-5.15
-5.35
-5.4
-5.5
-5.55
-5.75
-5.8
-5.9
-6.05
-6.25
-6.25
-6.35
-6.4
-6.5
-6.7
-6.75
-6.85
-6.95
-7.1
-7.1
-7.2
-7.35
-7.5
-7.55
-7.7
-4
-4.1
-4.1
-4.2
-4.25
-4.25
-4.35
-4.4
-4.5
-4.55
-4.6
-4.7
-4.8
-4.9
-5
-5.1
-5.2
-5.3
-5.4
-5.6
-5.7
-5.85
-6
-6.1
-6.15
-6.3
-6.4
-6.55
-6.55
-6.65
-6.85
-6.9
-7
-7.05
-7.15
-7.2
-7.3
-7.4
-7.55
-7.7
163
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-7.75
-7.85
-7.95
-8.1
-8.1
-8.25
-8.35
-8.3
-8.35
-8.4
-8.55
-8.55
-8.6
-8.65
-8.7
-8.8
-8.9
-8.95
-9
-9.05
-9.15
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.35
CH 400
Distance
0
10
-7.9
-8
-8
-8.15
-8.3
-8.4
-8.45
-8.5
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8
-8.95
-9.05
-9.05
-9.05
-9.1
-9.1
-9.2
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.45
-9.45
-9.45
-9.45
-9.55
-9.65
-9.65
-9.75
-9.75
-9.75
-7.85
-7.9
-7.95
-8.05
-8.15
-8.15
-8.4
-8.55
-8.6
-8.65
-8.75
-8.85
-8.9
-8.95
-8.95
-9
-9.05
-9.1
-9.15
-9.2
-9.2
-9.35
-9.4
-9.45
-9.45
-9.5
-9.45
-9.45
-9.55
-9.6
-9.65
-9.75
-7.75
-7.9
-8.05
-8.15
-8.15
-8.35
-8.4
-8.5
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8
-8.8
-8.8
-8.85
-8.95
-9
-9.1
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.3
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.45
-9.45
-9.45
-9.55
-9.6
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
3.8
2.6
Profile 2005
4.05
3.55
Profile 2006
4.1
3.5
Profile 2007
4.1
3.4
164
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
1.5
0.95
0.7
0.6
0.15
-0.55
-1.05
-1.3
-1.45
-1.65
-1.95
-2.05
-2.05
-2.2
-2.45
-2.65
-2.8
-2.9
-2.9
-3
-2.95
-3.15
-3.15
-3.2
-3.15
-3.2
-3.35
-3.35
-3.45
-3.4
-3.45
-3.45
-3.5
-3.6
-3.6
-3.75
-3.75
-3.85
-3.95
-3.85
3.2
3.15
1.85
1.3
0.85
0.7
0.25
-0.4
-1.15
-1.45
-1.55
-1.75
-1.95
-2.1
-2.35
-2.55
-2.65
-2.8
-2.85
-2.9
-2.9
-3.05
-3.15
-3.15
-3.15
-3.25
-3.4
-3.3
-3.4
-3.45
-3.45
-3.5
-3.6
-3.65
-3.65
-3.6
-3.7
-3.7
-3.8
-3.9
3.15
2.9
1.8
1.15
1
0.9
0.3
-0.5
-1
-1.25
-1.4
-1.45
-1.85
-2.05
-2.35
-2.5
-2.65
-2.65
-2.8
-2.85
-2.9
-3.05
-3.1
-3.1
-3.1
-3.1
-3.1
-3.25
-3.25
-3.25
-3.35
-3.45
-3.55
-3.6
-3.6
-3.7
-3.75
-3.9
-3.8
-3.8
3.5
4
1.7
0.4
-0.1
-0.3
-0.6
-0.9
-1
-1.4
-1.5
-1.8
-2.2
-2.4
-2.5
-2.5
-2.6
-2.7
-2.7
-2.75
-2.85
-2.85
-2.9
-3
-3.05
-3.1
-3.15
-3.2
-3.3
-3.3
-3.3
-3.35
-3.45
-3.5
-3.5
-3.65
-3.7
-3.7
-3.7
-3.8
165
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
-3.95
-4.05
-4.15
-4.1
-4.1
-4.15
-4.15
-4.3
-4.25
-4.3
-4.4
-4.45
-4.45
-4.45
-4.55
-4.65
-4.75
-4.75
-4.85
-4.9
-5.05
-5.1
-5.2
-5.15
-5.3
-5.35
-5.4
-5.6
-5.65
-5.8
-5.9
-6
-6.1
-6.2
-6.25
-6.4
-6.5
-6.55
-6.7
-6.8
-3.9
-3.9
-4
-4
-4.1
-4.15
-4.2
-4.2
-4.3
-4.35
-4.35
-4.45
-4.55
-4.6
-4.6
-4.6
-4.75
-4.9
-4.85
-5.05
-5
-5.1
-5.2
-5.3
-5.4
-5.45
-5.5
-5.65
-5.75
-5.85
-5.9
-6.05
-6.15
-6.25
-6.35
-6.4
-6.45
-6.55
-6.6
-6.8
-3.85
-3.95
-3.95
-4
-3.95
-4.05
-4.2
-4.3
-4.25
-4.25
-4.35
-4.4
-4.5
-4.5
-4.65
-4.8
-4.8
-4.8
-4.8
-4.95
-5.05
-5.05
-5.05
-5.1
-5.25
-5.45
-5.55
-5.55
-5.7
-5.85
-6
-6.05
-6.05
-6.15
-6.3
-6.35
-6.45
-6.45
-6.6
-6.75
-3.8
-3.9
-3.9
-3.95
-4.05
-4.1
-4.05
-4.1
-4.2
-4.2
-4.25
-4.3
-4.4
-4.5
-4.6
-4.65
-4.65
-4.75
-4.85
-4.9
-4.95
-5
-5.05
-5.15
-5.25
-5.3
-5.4
-5.45
-5.55
-5.65
-5.75
-5.85
-6
-6.1
-6.15
-6.3
-6.45
-6.5
-6.6
-6.7
166
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
-6.9
-7
-7.1
-7.1
-7.3
-7.4
-7.4
-7.5
-7.6
-7.65
-7.85
-7.9
-8
-8
-8.15
-8.15
-8.35
-8.35
-8.45
-8.6
-8.65
-8.65
-8.7
-8.75
-8.75
-8.8
-8.8
-8.95
-9
-9
-9.05
-9.15
-9.15
-9.35
-9.35
-9.4
-6.9
-7
-7.1
-7.25
-7.3
-7.4
-7.45
-7.55
-7.65
-7.7
-7.85
-7.95
-8.05
-8.1
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.5
-8.55
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8
-8.9
-8.95
-8.95
-9
-9
-9.05
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.25
-9.35
-9.45
-9.45
-9.5
-9.5
-9.5
-9.6
-9.65
-6.85
-6.95
-7
-7.05
-7.3
-7.35
-7.45
-7.5
-7.65
-7.8
-7.85
-7.9
-7.95
-8.15
-8.2
-8.25
-8.4
-8.45
-8.55
-8.55
-8.65
-8.75
-8.85
-8.85
-8.95
-9.05
-9.1
-9.1
-9.15
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.35
-9.35
-9.4
-9.55
-9.55
-9.5
-9.55
-9.6
-6.75
-6.8
-6.9
-7
-7.1
-7.2
-7.3
-7.4
-7.5
-7.7
-7.8
-7.95
-8
-8.1
-8.15
-8.3
-8.35
-8.4
-8.45
-8.6
-8.7
-8.7
-8.75
-8.85
-8.9
-9
-9
-9.1
-9.15
-9.15
-9.15
-9.25
-9.25
-9.4
-9.5
-9.45
-9.55
-9.55
-9.6
-9.55
167
1220
1230
1240
1250
-9.65
-9.7
-9.75
-9.8
CH 500
Distance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
-9.6
-9.65
-9.75
-9.75
-9.55
-9.7
-9.75
-9.8
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
5.3
3.2
1.9
1.1
0.35
-0.35
-0.65
-0.95
-1.1
-1.4
-1.65
-1.65
-1.9
-2.2
-2.5
-2.6
-2.7
-2.75
-2.8
-3
-3
-3.15
-3.1
-3.2
-3.35
-3.25
-3.4
-3.4
-3.45
-3.55
Profile 2005
5.1
3.9
3.25
3
2.35
1.7
1.25
0.5
-0.35
-0.95
-1.05
-1.2
-1.4
-1.7
-1.85
-2.15
-2.55
-2.75
-2.8
-2.9
-3
-3.1
-3.15
-3.2
-3.25
-3.3
-3.3
-3.35
-3.45
-3.5
Profile 2006
5.1
4
3.45
3.55
2.5
1.45
0.9
0.7
0.15
-0.55
-1.15
-1.25
-1.45
-1.5
-1.85
-2.15
-2.4
-2.6
-2.65
-2.75
-2.9
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3.1
-3.25
-3.35
-3.45
-3.4
Profile 2007
5.1
4.15
3.8
3.95
2.8
1.2
-0.05
-0.5
-0.55
-0.8
-1.05
-1.3
-1.55
-1.8
-2
-2.2
-2.4
-2.6
-2.65
-2.75
-2.85
-2.9
-3.05
-3.1
-3.1
-3.15
-3.2
-3.3
-3.35
-3.35
168
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
-3.6
-3.6
-3.65
-3.7
-3.75
-3.85
-3.85
-3.85
-4
-4
-4
-4.1
-4.1
-4.15
-4.2
-4.15
-4.35
-4.3
-4.4
-4.4
-4.55
-4.55
-4.6
-4.65
-4.75
-4.8
-4.85
-4.95
-5
-5.05
-5.05
-5.15
-5.2
-5.45
-5.5
-5.55
-5.55
-5.7
-5.8
-6
-3.55
-3.6
-3.65
-3.7
-3.75
-3.8
-3.75
-3.75
-3.85
-3.9
-4
-4.05
-4.05
-4.15
-4.3
-4.35
-4.4
-4.45
-4.5
-4.65
-4.75
-4.85
-4.95
-4.95
-5.05
-5.2
-5.25
-5.25
-5.3
-5.35
-5.35
-5.45
-5.5
-5.55
-5.65
-5.7
-5.75
-5.75
-5.9
-6
-3.45
-3.45
-3.6
-3.65
-3.65
-3.7
-3.7
-3.7
-3.9
-3.85
-3.95
-3.95
-4.05
-4.2
-4.3
-4.25
-4.25
-4.4
-4.55
-4.45
-4.5
-4.5
-4.6
-4.75
-4.75
-4.85
-4.9
-5.1
-5.15
-5.1
-5.25
-5.3
-5.4
-5.4
-5.55
-5.55
-5.55
-5.55
-5.65
-5.85
-3.45
-3.5
-3.55
-3.6
-3.65
-3.7
-3.7
-3.75
-3.8
-3.9
-4
-4
-4
-4.1
-4.2
-4.3
-4.3
-4.3
-4.4
-4.4
-4.5
-4.55
-4.6
-4.6
-4.7
-4.8
-4.85
-4.95
-4.95
-5.1
-5.15
-5.2
-5.3
-5.35
-5.4
-5.5
-5.55
-5.65
-5.75
-5.8
169
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
-6.05
-6.1
-6.15
-6.25
-6.35
-6.45
-6.55
-6.6
-6.7
-6.85
-6.85
-6.95
-7.1
-7.1
-7.3
-7.35
-7.4
-7.6
-7.5
-7.65
-7.7
-7.85
-7.9
-8
-8.1
-8.25
-8.25
-8.35
-8.35
-8.45
-8.45
-8.6
-8.65
-8.7
-8.75
-8.8
-8.8
-8.8
-9
-9
-6.1
-6.15
-6.2
-6.3
-6.4
-6.5
-6.65
-6.65
-6.75
-6.85
-6.95
-7.1
-7.25
-7.25
-7.35
-7.45
-7.5
-7.65
-7.7
-7.8
-7.95
-8
-8
-8.15
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.4
-8.5
-8.5
-8.55
-8.75
-8.75
-8.85
-8.95
-8.95
-9.05
-9.05
-9.15
-9.2
-5.9
-5.95
-6.1
-6.2
-6.35
-6.3
-6.5
-6.6
-6.65
-6.75
-6.8
-6.95
-7
-7.15
-7.25
-7.4
-7.4
-7.45
-7.55
-7.65
-7.7
-7.8
-7.9
-8.05
-8.1
-8.25
-8.3
-8.35
-8.5
-8.5
-8.55
-8.6
-8.75
-8.8
-8.75
-8.8
-8.95
-9
-8.95
-9.1
-5.9
-6.05
-6.1
-6.15
-6.2
-6.3
-6.45
-6.55
-6.7
-6.8
-6.9
-6.95
-7.05
-7.15
-7.25
-7.3
-7.35
-7.5
-7.6
-7.7
-7.75
-7.9
-8
-8.1
-8.2
-8.2
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.5
-8.6
-8.65
-8.7
-8.8
-8.85
-8.95
-9
-9.05
-9.1
-9.15
170
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-9.1
-9.15
-9.15
-9.2
-9.35
-9.4
-9.35
-9.4
-9.45
CH 600
Distance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.5
-9.55
-9.55
-9.6
-9.65
-9.7
-9.75
-9.75
-9.85
-9.8
-9.9
-10
-9.15
-9.25
-9.25
-9.25
-9.35
-9.4
-9.4
-9.45
-9.5
-9.55
-9.55
-9.6
-9.7
-9.75
-9.7
-9.75
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.3
-9.4
-9.45
-9.5
-9.5
-9.55
-9.6
-9.65
-9.65
-9.65
-9.75
-9.8
-9.85
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
5.85
4
2.8
1.55
0.3
-0.6
-0.7
-0.9
-0.95
-1.3
-1.5
-1.6
-1.8
-2.25
-2.4
-2.55
-2.65
-2.8
Profile 2005
6
4.8
3.95
3.5
3.6
2.65
1.95
0.8
-0.4
-1.25
-1.2
-1.15
-1.35
-1.55
-1.75
-2
-2.3
-2.65
Profile 2006
6
4.8
4
3.65
3.6
2.3
1.45
0.85
0.15
-0.65
-1.2
-1.35
-1.4
-1.45
-1.6
-1.9
-2.25
-2.5
Profile 2007
6
5.2
4.25
3.95
3.85
2.25
0.9
-0.05
-0.5
-0.8
-1
-1.15
-1.45
-1.75
-2
-2.2
-2.4
-2.6
171
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
-2.85
-3
-3.15
-3.4
-3.45
-3.3
-3.35
-3.45
-3.6
-3.55
-3.6
-3.65
-3.8
-3.8
-3.9
-3.95
-3.9
-3.9
-3.95
-4.05
-4
-4.15
-4.2
-4.2
-4.25
-4.25
-4.3
-4.35
-4.45
-4.45
-4.6
-4.65
-4.7
-4.75
-4.8
-4.85
-4.85
-5
-5.05
-5.1
-2.85
-2.95
-3.05
-3.2
-3.3
-3.35
-3.45
-3.55
-3.5
-3.6
-3.65
-3.7
-3.75
-3.75
-3.75
-3.75
-3.8
-3.85
-4
-4.1
-4.15
-4.2
-4.25
-4.25
-4.25
-4.35
-4.4
-4.5
-4.5
-4.55
-4.65
-4.7
-4.7
-4.75
-4.85
-4.95
-5.1
-5.1
-5.15
-5.25
-2.7
-2.8
-2.95
-2.95
-3.05
-3.2
-3.3
-3.35
-3.35
-3.4
-3.4
-3.4
-3.5
-3.65
-3.75
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.85
-3.95
-3.95
-3.9
-4
-4.05
-4.25
-4.35
-4.4
-4.4
-4.55
-4.7
-4.65
-4.65
-4.8
-4.95
-4.9
-4.85
-4.9
-5.05
-5.2
-5.15
-2.7
-2.85
-2.9
-3
-3.05
-3.05
-3.15
-3.2
-3.25
-3.3
-3.35
-3.45
-3.5
-3.55
-3.6
-3.7
-3.75
-3.75
-3.8
-3.85
-3.9
-4
-4.15
-4.15
-4.15
-4.2
-4.3
-4.35
-4.45
-4.5
-4.55
-4.65
-4.65
-4.75
-4.75
-4.85
-4.95
-5.05
-5.1
-5.15
172
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
-5.15
-5.25
-5.35
-5.45
-5.4
-5.55
-5.65
-5.75
-5.8
-5.95
-5.95
-6.1
-6.25
-6.3
-6.3
-6.4
-6.5
-6.55
-6.7
-6.8
-6.85
-6.95
-7
-7.1
-7.15
-7.25
-7.35
-7.45
-7.6
-7.7
-7.75
-7.75
-7.85
-7.95
-8.15
-8.2
-8.25
-8.35
-8.45
-8.5
-5.25
-5.35
-5.45
-5.6
-5.65
-5.7
-5.8
-5.85
-5.9
-6
-6.05
-6.1
-6.15
-6.25
-6.3
-6.45
-6.6
-6.75
-6.8
-6.85
-6.95
-7
-7.05
-7.1
-7.2
-7.35
-7.45
-7.6
-7.65
-7.7
-7.8
-7.9
-8.05
-8.1
-8.15
-8.25
-8.35
-8.4
-8.45
-8.55
-5.2
-5.3
-5.45
-5.4
-5.4
-5.5
-5.65
-5.65
-5.65
-5.8
-5.95
-6.05
-6.1
-6.2
-6.35
-6.45
-6.45
-6.55
-6.55
-6.65
-6.75
-6.8
-6.9
-7.1
-7.15
-7.15
-7.25
-7.4
-7.6
-7.65
-7.7
-7.75
-7.9
-8.05
-8.15
-8.15
-8.25
-8.3
-8.35
-8.45
-5.2
-5.2
-5.25
-5.4
-5.4
-5.45
-5.65
-5.75
-5.8
-5.9
-6
-6.1
-6.15
-6.2
-6.3
-6.4
-6.45
-6.55
-6.6
-6.7
-6.8
-6.9
-7
-7
-7.05
-7.15
-7.25
-7.35
-7.45
-7.6
-7.75
-7.9
-8
-8
-8.1
-8.15
-8.3
-8.35
-8.4
-8.5
173
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-8.55
-8.55
-8.65
-8.65
-8.75
-8.8
-8.8
-8.9
-9
-9.15
-9.05
-9.15
-9.2
-9.15
-9.3
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.45
-9.55
-9.65
CH 700
Distance
0
10
20
30
40
50
-8.55
-8.55
-8.6
-8.65
-8.85
-8.9
-9
-9
-9.1
-9.1
-9.25
-9.25
-9.35
-9.45
-9.4
-9.45
-9.45
-9.5
-9.65
-9.6
-9.6
-9.7
-9.75
-9.8
-9.8
-9.85
-9.85
-9.9
-8.5
-8.5
-8.6
-8.7
-8.75
-8.8
-8.9
-8.9
-8.95
-9.05
-9.15
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.25
-9.25
-9.35
-9.45
-9.45
-9.4
-9.4
-9.6
-9.6
-9.5
-9.6
-9.7
-9.7
-9.75
-8.55
-8.6
-8.65
-8.75
-8.75
-8.85
-8.9
-8.95
-8.95
-9
-9.05
-9.1
-9.15
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.35
-9.4
-9.45
-9.45
-9.5
-9.6
-9.65
-9.7
-9.6
-9.65
-9.65
-9.7
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
6.3
6.1
5.05
2.35
1.3
0.1
Profile 2005
6.1
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.6
3.25
Profile 2006
6.1
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.8
3.45
Profile 2007
6.1
4.4
4.1
3.8
4
3.5
174
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
-0.8
-0.85
-0.95
-1.2
-1.3
-1.5
-1.8
-2.1
-2.3
-2.6
-2.75
-3.05
-3
-3.05
-3.2
-3.3
-3.4
-3.45
-3.5
-3.55
-3.65
-3.65
-3.7
-3.7
-3.75
-3.85
-3.9
-3.9
-3.95
-4
-4.1
-4.1
-4.2
-4.25
-4.3
-4.3
-4.3
-4.4
-4.45
-4.45
2.1
1.15
0
-1
-1.3
-1.3
-1.45
-1.6
-1.8
-2
-2.4
-2.85
-3.05
-3.2
-3.35
-3.45
-3.5
-3.45
-3.55
-3.5
-3.55
-3.6
-3.7
-3.75
-3.7
-3.8
-3.9
-3.95
-3.95
-4
-4
-4.05
-4.1
-4.1
-4.15
-4.25
-4.3
-4.25
-4.35
-4.5
2.3
1.35
0.5
-0.4
-1.1
-1.35
-1.4
-1.45
-1.5
-1.9
-2.15
-2.55
-2.85
-3
-3.1
-3.2
-3.25
-3.35
-3.5
-3.45
-3.45
-3.5
-3.65
-3.7
-3.7
-3.7
-3.7
-3.8
-3.85
-3.85
-3.9
-4
-4.15
-4.1
-4.15
-4.25
-4.25
-4.45
-4.5
-4.5
1.85
0.4
-0.4
-0.7
-0.85
-1.1
-1.35
-1.6
-1.9
-2.15
-2.45
-2.65
-2.8
-2.95
-3.05
-3.15
-3.25
-3.3
-3.35
-3.45
-3.45
-3.5
-3.55
-3.6
-3.65
-3.75
-3.8
-3.85
-3.9
-3.95
-4
-4
-4.1
-4.2
-4.2
-4.3
-4.35
-4.35
-4.4
-4.45
175
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
-4.6
-4.55
-4.65
-4.7
-4.75
-4.9
-4.95
-4.95
-4.95
-5.05
-5.05
-5.2
-5.2
-5.3
-5.4
-5.55
-5.55
-5.7
-5.7
-5.9
-6
-6.05
-6.1
-6.25
-6.4
-6.45
-6.55
-6.65
-6.65
-6.8
-6.9
-7
-7
-7.15
-7.25
-7.3
-7.3
-7.45
-7.5
-7.55
-4.55
-4.65
-4.8
-4.8
-4.85
-4.85
-4.9
-5
-5.15
-5.1
-5.2
-5.35
-5.4
-5.4
-5.5
-5.6
-5.7
-5.75
-5.85
-6
-6.05
-6.2
-6.3
-6.3
-6.35
-6.45
-6.55
-6.65
-6.6
-6.75
-6.85
-7.05
-7.1
-7.15
-7.25
-7.25
-7.4
-7.45
-7.55
-7.65
-4.6
-4.7
-4.85
-4.8
-4.8
-4.9
-5
-5.2
-5.2
-5.15
-5.2
-5.35
-5.4
-5.5
-5.6
-5.65
-5.85
-5.9
-5.8
-5.8
-5.9
-6.05
-6.15
-6.15
-6.15
-6.35
-6.45
-6.55
-6.65
-6.7
-6.85
-6.95
-7
-7.05
-7.1
-7.1
-7.3
-7.4
-7.55
-7.65
-4.55
-4.65
-4.7
-4.75
-4.85
-4.9
-4.95
-5
-5.05
-5.2
-5.2
-5.25
-5.35
-5.35
-5.45
-5.55
-5.6
-5.6
-5.7
-5.75
-5.85
-5.95
-6
-6.1
-6.25
-6.35
-6.4
-6.5
-6.65
-6.7
-6.8
-6.9
-7
-7.05
-7.25
-7.35
-7.4
-7.5
-7.55
-7.65
176
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
-7.7
-7.75
-7.85
-7.9
-7.95
-8.15
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.45
-8.5
-8.65
-8.6
-8.65
-8.8
-8.8
-8.8
-8.95
-8.9
-9
-9
-9.15
-9.15
-9.2
-9.3
-9.4
-9.35
-9.35
-9.4
-9.5
-9.55
-9.5
-9.55
-7.8
-7.9
-7.95
-8.05
-8.1
-8.2
-8.25
-8.35
-8.4
-8.5
-8.5
-8.6
-8.65
-8.75
-8.8
-8.9
-8.95
-9.05
-9.05
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.35
-9.35
-9.35
-9.4
-9.45
-9.45
-9.5
-9.55
-9.6
-9.65
-9.7
-9.65
-9.75
-9.75
-9.75
-9.9
-9.9
-7.75
-7.75
-7.85
-8.05
-8
-8.05
-8.1
-8.25
-8.3
-8.35
-8.45
-8.6
-8.6
-8.6
-8.65
-8.75
-8.9
-8.9
-8.9
-8.9
-9.15
-9.25
-9.3
-9.25
-9.4
-9.3
-9.25
-9.3
-9.4
-9.5
-9.55
-9.55
-9.6
-9.65
-9.7
-9.65
-9.7
-9.8
-9.85
-7.8
-7.85
-8
-8.05
-8
-8.1
-8.15
-8.25
-8.35
-8.45
-8.45
-8.6
-8.65
-8.7
-8.7
-8.75
-8.85
-8.95
-9
-9
-9
-9.05
-9.1
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.35
-9.35
-9.4
-9.5
-9.45
-9.45
-9.5
-9.5
-9.5
-9.5
-9.5
177
1250
-10
CH 800
Distance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
-9.9
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
6.2
6
6
4.65
2.6
1.6
0.4
-0.6
-0.85
-1.05
-1.1
-1.4
-1.2
-1.55
-2.1
-2.45
-2.75
-2.9
-3.1
-3.2
-3.35
-3.4
-3.4
-3.4
-3.65
-3.65
-3.7
-3.75
-3.8
-3.8
-3.95
-4
-4
Profile 2005
6.3
6
6
4.4
3.55
3.45
3.05
2.15
1.1
-0.25
-1
-1.2
-1.2
-1.4
-1.55
-1.7
-2
-2.5
-2.8
-3.15
-3.3
-3.4
-3.4
-3.4
-3.5
-3.55
-3.65
-3.65
-3.75
-3.8
-3.8
-3.95
-4
Profile 2006
6.3
6
6
4.4
3.8
3.7
3.4
2.1
1.25
0.15
-0.65
-1.2
-1.35
-1.35
-1.45
-1.7
-2.25
-2.45
-2.8
-2.95
-3.1
-3.2
-3.3
-3.3
-3.4
-3.65
-3.7
-3.7
-3.65
-3.85
-3.95
-3.95
-3.9
Profile 2007
6.3
6
6
4.4
3.9
4
3.25
1.8
0.45
-0.5
-0.9
-1.05
-1.3
-1.55
-1.75
-2
-2.35
-2.6
-2.8
-3
-3.05
-3.2
-3.3
-3.35
-3.4
-3.5
-3.55
-3.7
-3.7
-3.8
-3.85
-3.85
-3.9
178
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
-4.05
-4.1
-4.1
-4.1
-4.2
-4.3
-4.3
-4.4
-4.4
-4.35
-4.45
-4.55
-4.6
-4.7
-4.75
-4.8
-4.75
-4.9
-4.9
-5.05
-5.05
-5.15
-5.2
-5.25
-5.4
-5.4
-5.55
-5.55
-5.75
-5.8
-5.8
-5.95
-5.95
-6.2
-6.3
-6.4
-6.4
-6.45
-6.55
-6.7
-4
-4
-4.05
-4.1
-4.15
-4.3
-4.3
-4.3
-4.4
-4.45
-4.45
-4.55
-4.7
-4.85
-4.95
-5
-5
-5.05
-5.05
-5.05
-5
-5.05
-5.15
-5.3
-5.35
-5.5
-5.6
-5.8
-5.85
-5.9
-5.95
-6.05
-6.05
-6.15
-6.3
-6.35
-6.45
-6.55
-6.55
-6.6
-3.9
-3.9
-3.9
-3.95
-4
-4.15
-4.15
-4.2
-4.35
-4.55
-4.55
-4.5
-4.6
-4.7
-4.75
-4.7
-4.7
-4.85
-5.1
-5.05
-5.15
-5.2
-5.35
-5.4
-5.45
-5.6
-5.6
-5.65
-5.7
-5.75
-5.9
-5.95
-6.1
-6.2
-6.3
-6.3
-6.4
-6.45
-6.45
-6.55
-3.95
-4.05
-4.1
-4.1
-4.2
-4.15
-4.25
-4.3
-4.4
-4.5
-4.5
-4.55
-4.6
-4.7
-4.75
-4.8
-4.9
-4.95
-5
-5.1
-5.15
-5.2
-5.35
-5.4
-5.5
-5.45
-5.55
-5.7
-5.8
-5.9
-5.9
-6
-6.05
-6.05
-6.15
-6.25
-6.35
-6.4
-6.4
-6.5
179
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
-6.8
-6.9
-7
-7.05
-7.05
-7.15
-7.25
-7.35
-7.4
-7.5
-7.55
-7.65
-7.75
-7.8
-7.9
-7.95
-8.05
-8.15
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.45
-8.5
-8.55
-8.55
-8.65
-8.65
-8.75
-8.7
-8.9
-8.95
-8.95
-9.05
-9.15
-9.1
-9.2
-9.25
-9.35
-9.3
-9.45
-6.8
-6.9
-6.95
-7
-7.15
-7.25
-7.35
-7.35
-7.5
-7.5
-7.55
-7.7
-7.75
-7.9
-7.95
-8
-8.1
-8.25
-8.3
-8.3
-8.4
-8.45
-8.5
-8.6
-8.65
-8.75
-8.8
-8.85
-8.95
-9
-9.1
-9.2
-9.2
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.4
-9.45
-6.7
-6.75
-6.85
-7
-7.05
-7.1
-7.1
-7.15
-7.3
-7.45
-7.45
-7.5
-7.8
-7.9
-7.9
-7.85
-7.95
-8.15
-8.3
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.45
-8.55
-8.6
-8.6
-8.8
-8.85
-8.95
-9
-9.05
-9.15
-9.2
-9.2
-9.15
-9.2
-9.4
-9.35
-9.3
-9.35
-6.55
-6.65
-6.75
-6.85
-6.95
-7.1
-7.2
-7.25
-7.3
-7.4
-7.5
-7.6
-7.7
-7.75
-7.9
-8
-8.1
-8.15
-8.25
-8.3
-8.35
-8.45
-8.5
-8.55
-8.6
-8.7
-8.65
-8.75
-8.8
-8.9
-8.9
-9
-9
-9
-9.1
-9.2
-9.3
-9.3
-9.35
-9.3
180
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-9.4
-9.55
-9.6
-9.6
-9.55
-9.6
-9.7
-9.75
CH 900
Distance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
-9.5
-9.55
-9.6
-9.7
-9.7
-9.7
-9.8
-9.75
-9.85
-9.9
-9.95
-10.05
-10.1
-9.45
-9.45
-9.4
-9.55
-9.7
-9.65
-9.6
-9.75
-9.7
-9.75
-9.85
-10.05
-10.05
-9.35
-9.45
-9.45
-9.55
-9.6
-9.6
-9.6
-9.7
-9.7
-9.7
-9.7
-9.7
-9.75
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
6.2
6.2
6.2
5.75
4.25
3.1
1.95
0.65
-0.55
-1
-1.2
-1.3
-1.4
-1.55
-1.75
-2.05
-2.35
-2.65
-2.9
-3.05
-3.2
Profile 2005
6.1
6.2
6.2
4.7
4.6
3.8
3.55
3.6
2.8
1.75
0.5
-0.6
-1.05
-1.05
-1.2
-1.4
-1.7
-2.2
-2.55
-2.95
-3.25
Profile 2006
6.1
6.2
6.2
4.7
4.6
3.95
3.85
3.5
2.65
1.8
0.5
-0.7
-1.25
-1.3
-1.35
-1.4
-1.8
-2.15
-2.55
-2.9
-3.15
Profile 2007
6.1
6.2
6.2
4.7
4.4
4.25
4
3.45
2.2
0.85
-0.35
-0.8
-0.9
-1.15
-1.4
-1.6
-1.95
-2.25
-2.65
-2.95
-3.1
181
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
-3.25
-3.35
-3.45
-3.55
-3.65
-3.65
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.85
-4
-4
-4.05
-4.1
-4.15
-4.2
-4.2
-4.25
-4.35
-4.45
-4.5
-4.55
-4.65
-4.6
-4.8
-4.75
-4.85
-4.9
-4.9
-4.95
-5.15
-5.05
-5.15
-5.15
-5.35
-5.35
-5.5
-5.55
-5.7
-5.7
-3.4
-3.5
-3.55
-3.65
-3.7
-3.75
-3.85
-3.8
-3.85
-4
-4.05
-4
-4.05
-4.2
-4.25
-4.25
-4.3
-4.35
-4.4
-4.45
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.55
-4.6
-4.65
-4.7
-4.8
-4.95
-5
-5.15
-5.2
-5.25
-5.3
-5.4
-5.5
-5.55
-5.65
-5.7
-5.8
-3.25
-3.3
-3.4
-3.4
-3.4
-3.6
-3.75
-3.85
-3.85
-3.85
-3.95
-4
-4.1
-4.05
-4.1
-4.15
-4.2
-4.25
-4.3
-4.35
-4.55
-4.55
-4.55
-4.55
-4.6
-4.7
-4.8
-4.85
-4.85
-4.9
-5.05
-5.1
-5.2
-5.25
-5.25
-5.4
-5.55
-5.7
-5.75
-5.7
-3.15
-3.25
-3.3
-3.4
-3.45
-3.5
-3.6
-3.65
-3.75
-3.8
-3.85
-3.95
-3.95
-4.05
-4.1
-4.2
-4.25
-4.3
-4.3
-4.35
-4.4
-4.45
-4.6
-4.65
-4.7
-4.8
-4.8
-4.8
-4.9
-5.05
-5.2
-5.2
-5.3
-5.4
-5.45
-5.5
-5.6
-5.7
-5.75
-5.9
182
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
-5.85
-5.95
-6.05
-6.1
-6.15
-6.2
-6.3
-6.45
-6.6
-6.7
-6.75
-6.75
-6.9
-7.05
-7.1
-7.2
-7.25
-7.35
-7.45
-7.5
-7.55
-7.6
-7.7
-7.75
-7.8
-7.95
-8.05
-8.2
-8.2
-8.25
-8.3
-8.35
-8.5
-8.5
-8.55
-8.6
-8.7
-8.75
-8.85
-8.9
-5.8
-5.95
-6.15
-6.3
-6.4
-6.5
-6.55
-6.6
-6.7
-6.75
-6.75
-6.8
-6.9
-7.1
-7.15
-7.2
-7.3
-7.4
-7.5
-7.6
-7.7
-7.75
-7.85
-7.9
-8
-8.1
-8.1
-8.25
-8.3
-8.3
-8.4
-8.5
-8.55
-8.6
-8.7
-8.75
-8.8
-8.85
-8.9
-8.9
-5.9
-6
-5.9
-5.95
-6.15
-6.35
-6.5
-6.55
-6.65
-6.65
-6.75
-6.85
-6.9
-6.9
-6.95
-7.1
-7.2
-7.3
-7.25
-7.35
-7.5
-7.6
-7.7
-7.85
-7.9
-7.95
-8.1
-8.1
-8.15
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.4
-8.45
-8.65
-8.7
-8.65
-8.65
-8.95
-9.05
-5.9
-5.9
-6
-6.1
-6.15
-6.3
-6.3
-6.4
-6.5
-6.55
-6.65
-6.7
-6.8
-6.85
-6.95
-7
-7.1
-7.2
-7.25
-7.35
-7.4
-7.55
-7.65
-7.7
-7.85
-7.95
-8.05
-8.15
-8.2
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.45
-8.5
-8.6
-8.6
-8.65
-8.75
-8.8
-8.85
183
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-8.95
-8.95
-9
-9.15
-9.1
-9.2
-9.3
-9.3
-9.3
-9.4
-9.5
-9.5
-9.55
-9.6
-9.65
-9.75
-9.8
-9.8
CH 1000
Distance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-9.05
-9.1
-9.1
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.4
-9.45
-9.45
-9.55
-9.6
-9.65
-9.75
-9.75
-9.75
-9.85
-9.9
-9.9
-10
-10.1
-10.05
-10.2
-10.25
-10.25
-9
-9.1
-9.05
-9.1
-9.1
-9.15
-9.25
-9.25
-9.3
-9.5
-9.55
-9.5
-9.45
-9.6
-9.55
-9.7
-9.75
-9.95
-10
-9.95
-10.05
-10.2
-10.25
-10.2
-10.25
-9
-9.1
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.45
-9.45
-9.5
-9.5
-9.6
-9.6
-9.7
-9.7
-9.7
-9.75
-9.75
-9.8
-9.8
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
8.8
7.9
7
6.1
5.8
4.5
3.15
2.85
1
Profile 2005
8.8
7.9
7
6.1
5.7
4.3
3.8
3.55
3.65
Profile 2006
8.8
7.9
7
6.1
5.7
4.3
3.8
3.7
3.8
Profile 2007
8.8
7.9
7
6.1
5.7
4.3
4
4
3.6
184
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
-0.4
-0.85
-1.1
-1.3
-1.5
-1.6
-1.75
-2.05
-2.25
-2.5
-2.85
-3.1
-3.3
-3.35
-3.5
-3.55
-3.6
-3.8
-3.75
-3.8
-3.9
-4
-4.05
-4.1
-4.1
-4.2
-4.25
-4.35
-4.35
-4.4
-4.55
-4.55
-4.6
-4.65
-4.75
-4.8
-4.85
-4.85
-4.95
-5
3.2
1.95
0.6
-0.85
-0.9
-1.15
-1.3
-1.5
-1.75
-2.1
-2.6
-3.1
-3.3
-3.45
-3.65
-3.7
-3.75
-3.8
-3.85
-3.85
-4
-4.1
-4.1
-4.15
-4.2
-4.25
-4.3
-4.3
-4.35
-4.4
-4.45
-4.6
-4.65
-4.7
-4.8
-4.85
-4.85
-4.95
-4.95
-5.1
3.05
1.75
0.4
-0.7
-1.1
-1.25
-1.35
-1.45
-1.55
-1.95
-2.35
-2.7
-3
-3.25
-3.45
-3.55
-3.65
-3.65
-3.7
-3.85
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-4
-4.15
-4.15
-4.15
-4.15
-4.25
-4.4
-4.3
-4.4
-4.6
-4.6
-4.6
-4.7
-4.85
-4.95
-4.8
-4.75
2.8
1.7
0.35
-0.65
-0.85
-1
-1.35
-1.5
-1.8
-2.1
-2.5
-2.75
-3.05
-3.2
-3.35
-3.5
-3.6
-3.7
-3.7
-3.9
-3.95
-3.95
-4.05
-4.15
-4.15
-4.2
-4.2
-4.25
-4.4
-4.4
-4.4
-4.45
-4.5
-4.55
-4.6
-4.7
-4.8
-4.9
-5
-5.05
185
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
-5.05
-5.25
-5.25
-5.3
-5.4
-5.45
-5.55
-5.65
-5.65
-5.7
-5.85
-5.85
-6
-6.1
-6.2
-6.25
-6.4
-6.45
-6.5
-6.6
-6.75
-6.85
-6.85
-6.95
-7.1
-7.15
-7.3
-7.35
-7.4
-7.45
-7.55
-7.6
-7.7
-7.8
-7.9
-8
-8.05
-8.05
-8.15
-8.25
-5.15
-5.25
-5.25
-5.4
-5.45
-5.5
-5.6
-5.7
-5.9
-5.85
-5.9
-6.1
-6.2
-6.25
-6.3
-6.25
-6.4
-6.45
-6.5
-6.65
-6.75
-6.8
-6.9
-7.2
-7.2
-7.3
-7.45
-7.4
-7.5
-7.6
-7.7
-7.75
-7.85
-7.9
-7.95
-8
-8.1
-8.2
-8.2
-8.25
-5
-5.2
-5.2
-5.35
-5.3
-5.3
-5.4
-5.6
-5.7
-5.7
-5.8
-5.95
-6.1
-6.15
-6.2
-6.2
-6.35
-6.35
-6.35
-6.45
-6.6
-6.65
-6.75
-7.05
-7.05
-7.15
-7.25
-7.25
-7.35
-7.4
-7.5
-7.55
-7.7
-7.75
-7.8
-7.9
-7.95
-8
-8.05
-8.15
-5.05
-5.1
-5.2
-5.2
-5.3
-5.4
-5.55
-5.6
-5.7
-5.8
-5.85
-5.9
-6
-6.1
-6.2
-6.25
-6.4
-6.4
-6.5
-6.55
-6.65
-6.7
-6.8
-6.85
-6.9
-7
-7.15
-7.2
-7.35
-7.4
-7.5
-7.55
-7.65
-7.75
-7.85
-7.9
-8
-8.05
-8.1
-8.15
186
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-8.25
-8.4
-8.5
-8.45
-8.6
-8.6
-8.75
-8.75
-8.85
-8.85
-8.95
-9.05
-9
-9.1
-9.2
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.4
-9.5
-9.5
-9.55
-9.65
-9.6
-9.65
-9.75
-9.75
-8.35
-8.4
-8.6
-8.65
-8.65
-8.75
-8.8
-8.85
-8.95
-9
-9.05
-9.15
-9.2
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.45
-9.5
-9.5
-9.6
-9.6
-9.7
-9.7
-9.75
-9.8
-9.9
-9.9
-10
-10.05
-10.05
-10.15
-10.15
-10.15
-10.2
-10.25
-10.35
-10.4
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.55
-8.7
-8.75
-8.7
-8.65
-8.7
-8.8
-8.95
-9.15
-9.2
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.3
-9.4
-9.45
-9.45
-9.5
-9.55
-9.55
-9.6
-9.65
-9.75
-9.8
-9.9
-9.85
-9.95
-10
-10.05
-10
-10.1
-10.05
-10
-10.05
-8.2
-8.25
-8.35
-8.45
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8
-8.8
-8.8
-8.9
-8.95
-9
-9.05
-9.1
-9.2
-9.2
-9.3
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.45
-9.55
-9.55
-9.6
-9.6
-9.75
-9.8
-9.9
-9.95
-9.95
-10.05
-10
-9.95
187
CH 1100
Distance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
13.8
12.9
11.7
10.4
7.7
6
4.85
3.25
3.65
0.9
-0.1
-0.75
-1.15
-1.35
-1.4
-1.55
-1.7
-2.05
-2.25
-2.55
-2.85
-3.05
-3.25
-3.35
-3.5
-3.65
-3.75
-3.9
-3.95
-4
-4.05
-4.15
-4.15
-4.3
-4.3
-4.4
-4.4
Profile 2005
13.8
12.9
11.8
10.4
7.7
6.1
4.15
3.85
3.6
3.65
3.55
2.4
1.05
-0.3
-0.8
-1.05
-1.25
-1.5
-1.7
-2.05
-2.45
-2.9
-3.15
-3.3
-3.6
-3.7
-3.8
-3.85
-3.95
-4.05
-4.15
-4.25
-4.25
-4.3
-4.45
-4.45
-4.6
Profile 2006
13.8
12.9
11.8
10.4
7.7
6.1
3.8
4
3.7
3.75
3.45
2
0.4
-0.95
-1.5
-1.4
-1.35
-1.55
-1.75
-1.95
-2.4
-2.8
-3.05
-3.35
-3.5
-3.6
-3.85
-3.9
-3.9
-3.85
-3.9
-4.05
-4.15
-4.15
-4.2
-4.25
-4.3
Profile 2007
13.8
12.9
11.8
10.4
7.7
6.1
4.8
4.2
4.2
3.95
3.3
2.5
1.15
-0.4
-0.75
-1
-1.3
-1.6
-1.75
-2.1
-2.45
-2.75
-3.1
-3.3
-3.5
-3.6
-3.65
-3.75
-3.85
-3.95
-4
-4.1
-4.1
-4.15
-4.2
-4.3
-4.4
188
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
-4.45
-4.6
-4.65
-4.75
-4.75
-4.8
-4.95
-5
-5.05
-5.15
-5.15
-5.25
-5.3
-5.4
-5.5
-5.5
-5.6
-5.6
-5.75
-5.8
-5.95
-6.1
-6.1
-6.15
-6.2
-6.25
-6.45
-6.45
-6.65
-6.7
-6.8
-6.85
-6.95
-7.1
-7.05
-7.2
-7.3
-7.4
-7.45
-7.45
-4.7
-4.7
-4.8
-4.85
-4.9
-4.9
-4.95
-5
-5.1
-5.1
-5.15
-5.25
-5.35
-5.35
-5.45
-5.6
-5.7
-5.75
-5.9
-5.95
-6.05
-6.15
-6.15
-6.3
-6.5
-6.45
-6.45
-6.55
-6.7
-6.75
-6.8
-6.95
-7
-7.2
-7.25
-7.3
-7.4
-7.4
-7.5
-7.6
-4.45
-4.5
-4.55
-4.6
-4.7
-4.85
-5
-5.05
-5.05
-5.1
-5.15
-5.25
-5.3
-5.35
-5.4
-5.55
-5.6
-5.7
-5.85
-5.95
-6
-6.1
-6.15
-6.1
-6.2
-6.25
-6.3
-6.45
-6.55
-6.65
-6.8
-6.9
-7.05
-7.1
-7.1
-7.2
-7.25
-7.35
-7.5
-7.5
-4.4
-4.5
-4.6
-4.65
-4.75
-4.75
-4.85
-4.95
-5.05
-5.1
-5.15
-5.15
-5.25
-5.35
-5.45
-5.5
-5.65
-5.75
-5.85
-5.9
-5.9
-5.9
-6
-6.1
-6.2
-6.3
-6.4
-6.4
-6.5
-6.55
-6.65
-6.75
-6.9
-7
-7.1
-7.15
-7.2
-7.25
-7.35
-7.4
189
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
-7.6
-7.7
-7.8
-7.8
-8
-8.05
-8.1
-8.15
-8.25
-8.4
-8.4
-8.45
-8.55
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8
-8.8
-8.85
-8.95
-9.05
-9
-9.05
-9.1
-9.1
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.4
-9.4
-9.5
-9.45
-9.55
-9.55
-9.65
-9.7
-9.75
-9.75
-9.85
-9.9
-9.85
-7.75
-7.8
-7.95
-8
-8
-8.1
-8.2
-8.25
-8.35
-8.5
-8.55
-8.6
-8.65
-8.75
-8.7
-8.8
-8.85
-8.9
-8.95
-9.2
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.4
-9.4
-9.5
-9.5
-9.5
-9.55
-9.65
-9.7
-9.8
-9.8
-9.85
-9.95
-9.95
-10.05
-10.1
-10.1
-7.6
-7.7
-7.7
-7.8
-7.85
-8
-8.15
-8.3
-8.35
-8.4
-8.35
-8.45
-8.4
-8.45
-8.65
-8.65
-8.8
-8.9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9.1
-9.15
-9.2
-9.3
-9.4
-9.5
-9.5
-9.55
-9.55
-9.65
-9.7
-9.75
-9.8
-9.9
-9.9
-9.95
-10
-9.95
-7.5
-7.6
-7.7
-7.75
-7.85
-8
-8.1
-8.15
-8.25
-8.35
-8.35
-8.4
-8.5
-8.6
-8.65
-8.7
-8.7
-8.75
-8.85
-8.95
-9
-9.1
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.45
-9.45
-9.5
-9.6
-9.65
-9.65
-9.65
-9.7
-9.75
-9.75
-9.8
-9.9
190
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-9.9
CH 1200
Distance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
-10.1
-10.15
-10.25
-10.2
-10.25
-10.3
-10.3
-10.35
-10.45
-9.95
-10
-10.1
-10.1
-10.15
-10.2
-10.2
-10.2
-10.25
-9.95
-9.95
-10
-10
-10.05
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
12.8
10.7
9.9
9.9
7.2
6
6
4.3
3.4
2.15
1.4
0.2
-0.6
-1.15
-1.35
-1.35
-1.8
-1.9
-2.05
-2.25
-2.5
-2.75
-2.95
-3.2
-3.4
Profile 2005
12.8
10.7
9.9
9.9
7.2
6
6
4.2
3.45
3.35
3.25
3.35
2.4
1.45
0.75
0.05
-0.85
-1.1
-1.25
-1.45
-1.85
-2.15
-2.55
-2.9
-3.45
Profile 2006
12.8
10.7
9.9
9.9
7.2
6
6
3.9
3.8
3
2.1
1.6
1.15
0.7
-0.1
-0.9
-1.3
-1.3
-1.35
-1.5
-1.95
-2.25
-2.75
-3.1
-3.35
Profile 2007
12.8
10.7
9.9
9.9
7.2
6
6
3.9
3.6
3.9
3.9
3.5
2.8
1.9
0.45
-0.9
-1.1
-1.15
-1.45
-1.7
-1.95
-2.4
-2.7
-3.05
-3.25
191
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
-3.6
-3.7
-3.9
-4
-4.1
-4.15
-4.25
-4.3
-4.35
-4.6
-4.55
-4.6
-4.75
-4.75
-4.9
-4.95
-5.05
-5.1
-5.2
-5.3
-5.25
-5.5
-5.55
-5.6
-5.6
-5.7
-5.75
-5.75
-5.85
-5.95
-6
-6.05
-6.15
-6.3
-6.35
-6.4
-6.55
-6.55
-6.65
-6.8
-3.75
-3.9
-3.9
-3.95
-4.1
-4.2
-4.3
-4.4
-4.4
-4.45
-4.6
-4.7
-4.7
-4.65
-4.75
-4.9
-5.05
-5.15
-5.35
-5.4
-5.55
-5.65
-5.8
-5.95
-6
-5.9
-5.85
-5.7
-5.45
-5.35
-5.3
-5.35
-5.4
-5.55
-5.8
-6.15
-6.6
-6.8
-6.85
-6.95
-3.5
-3.6
-3.75
-3.85
-4.05
-4.15
-4.2
-4.35
-4.3
-4.25
-4.4
-4.45
-4.5
-4.55
-4.7
-4.9
-5.05
-5.1
-5.1
-5.2
-5.35
-5.5
-5.7
-5.9
-6
-5.95
-5.95
-5.85
-5.7
-5.7
-5.7
-5.8
-6
-6.15
-6.35
-6.55
-6.65
-6.7
-6.75
-6.75
-3.45
-3.6
-3.8
-3.9
-3.95
-4
-4.1
-4.15
-4.25
-4.3
-4.35
-4.5
-4.6
-4.65
-4.7
-4.9
-4.95
-5.05
-5.1
-5.2
-5.25
-5.35
-5.5
-5.65
-5.8
-6
-6.1
-6.25
-6.35
-6.35
-6.45
-6.55
-6.6
-6.6
-6.65
-6.7
-6.75
-6.7
-6.7
-6.75
192
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
-6.9
-7
-7.15
-7.2
-7.3
-7.4
-7.45
-7.55
-7.55
-7.65
-7.7
-7.8
-7.9
-8
-8.05
-8.2
-8.2
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.45
-8.5
-8.65
-8.75
-8.8
-8.85
-8.85
-8.9
-8.95
-9.05
-9.05
-9.15
-9.15
-9.25
-9.35
-9.4
-9.45
-9.45
-9.45
-9.45
-7.05
-7.05
-7.05
-7.15
-7.3
-7.3
-7.35
-7.5
-7.55
-7.7
-7.8
-7.8
-7.95
-8
-8.15
-8.25
-8.25
-8.35
-8.4
-8.5
-8.55
-8.65
-8.7
-8.7
-8.8
-8.9
-8.95
-8.95
-9.1
-9.2
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.3
-9.4
-9.4
-9.45
-9.55
-9.55
-9.55
-6.85
-6.9
-7
-7.1
-7.15
-7.3
-7.35
-7.35
-7.4
-7.55
-7.65
-7.75
-7.8
-7.9
-7.95
-8
-8.15
-8.25
-8.3
-8.3
-8.45
-8.5
-8.55
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8
-8.9
-8.95
-9
-9.05
-9.1
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.4
-9.35
-9.45
-9.55
-6.85
-6.95
-7
-7.1
-7.2
-7.3
-7.3
-7.4
-7.5
-7.55
-7.65
-7.75
-7.85
-7.9
-7.95
-8.05
-8.1
-8.15
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.45
-8.55
-8.65
-8.65
-8.75
-8.85
-8.95
-8.95
-9
-9.1
-9.2
-9.2
-9.2
-9.3
-9.3
-9.3
-9.4
-9.5
-9.5
193
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-9.7
-9.6
-9.7
-9.65
-9.75
-9.9
-9.95
-9.9
-10
-9.95
-10
-10.1
-10.1
CH 1300
Distance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
-9.65
-9.7
-9.8
-9.8
-9.85
-9.85
-10
-10.05
-10.05
-10.1
-10.1
-10.15
-10.15
-10.25
-10.3
-10.35
-10.3
-10.3
-10.45
-10.4
-10.55
-9.6
-9.6
-9.65
-9.7
-9.7
-9.8
-9.8
-9.85
-9.95
-9.95
-10.05
-10.05
-10.05
-10.05
-10.15
-10.2
-10.2
-10.2
-10.25
-10.35
-10.3
-9.6
-9.6
-9.7
-9.7
-9.7
-9.75
-9.85
-9.95
-9.95
-10
-10.05
-10.1
-10.15
-10.2
-10.25
-10.2
-10.25
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
31.4
27.6
23.5
20.5
18.9
16.9
13.2
8
5.45
5.2
4.25
3.65
4.7
Profile 2005
31.4
27.6
23.5
20.5
18.9
16.8
12.3
7.8
6.3
5.3
3.5
3.9
5.7
Profile 2006
31.4
27.6
23.5
20.5
18.9
16.8
12.3
7.8
6.3
5.3
3.5
3.9
5.7
Profile 2007
31.4
27.6
23.5
20.5
18.9
16.8
12.3
7.8
6.2
6.3
5.3
3.5
3.9
194
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
3.95
0.25
-1
-1.15
-1.35
-1.55
-1.9
-2.15
-2.35
-2.4
-2.7
-3
-3.3
-3.55
-3.75
-3.9
-4.2
-4.25
-4.4
-4.45
-4.6
-4.7
-4.8
-4.9
-5.05
-5.05
-5.25
-5.3
-5.35
-5.4
-5.45
-5.5
-5.45
-5.55
-5.65
-5.75
-5.85
-6
-6
-6.1
4.1
1.8
0.35
-0.75
-1.3
-1.4
-1.55
-1.75
-1.95
-2.15
-2.55
-3.1
-3.55
-3.7
-4
-4.15
-4.2
-4.25
-4.4
-4.5
-4.65
-4.75
-4.8
-4.85
-4.9
-4.95
-5
-5.15
-5.15
-5.25
-5.5
-5.65
-5.7
-5.65
-5.7
-5.75
-5.85
-6
-6.1
-6.2
4.2
1.8
0.65
-0.35
-1.2
-1.35
-1.45
-1.65
-1.8
-2.25
-2.65
-3.15
-3.45
-3.7
-3.85
-4.05
-4.1
-4.25
-4.3
-4.4
-4.55
-4.7
-4.85
-4.9
-4.9
-4.9
-5
-5.1
-5.2
-5.45
-5.65
-5.75
-5.85
-5.95
-6
-5.95
-5.9
-5.8
-5.75
-5.7
5.7
3.7
1.15
-0.2
-0.85
-1.1
-1.25
-1.55
-1.75
-2.05
-2.5
-2.9
-3.15
-3.4
-3.65
-3.85
-4.05
-4.2
-4.35
-4.45
-4.55
-4.7
-4.75
-4.9
-5
-5.15
-5.25
-5.4
-5.55
-5.65
-5.85
-6
-6.05
-6.15
-6.25
-6.25
-6.2
-6.1
-6
-5.9
195
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
-6.25
-6.25
-6.3
-6.5
-6.45
-6.65
-6.65
-6.75
-6.8
-6.8
-7
-7.05
-7.15
-7.25
-7.4
-7.4
-7.5
-7.6
-7.65
-7.8
-7.85
-7.9
-7.95
-8
-8.15
-8.25
-8.3
-8.45
-8.45
-8.45
-8.55
-8.65
-8.7
-8.8
-8.85
-8.85
-8.95
-9
-9.1
-9.1
-6.3
-6.4
-6.45
-6.55
-6.5
-6.45
-6.55
-6.7
-6.8
-6.9
-7
-7.2
-7.3
-7.35
-7.4
-7.55
-7.55
-7.65
-7.75
-7.85
-7.9
-8
-8.05
-8.15
-8.25
-8.3
-8.4
-8.45
-8.5
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8
-8.8
-8.95
-8.95
-9.05
-9
-9.1
-9.1
-9.2
-5.75
-5.9
-6.05
-6.2
-6.35
-6.55
-6.65
-6.7
-6.75
-6.95
-7.1
-7.1
-7.1
-7.1
-7.15
-7.3
-7.35
-7.4
-7.6
-7.75
-7.8
-7.8
-7.95
-8.05
-8.1
-8.25
-8.3
-8.35
-8.3
-8.3
-8.4
-8.5
-8.6
-8.65
-8.7
-8.75
-8.9
-8.95
-9.05
-9.15
-5.85
-5.85
-5.9
-5.9
-6
-6.2
-6.4
-6.6
-6.8
-6.95
-7.1
-7.1
-7.15
-7.25
-7.35
-7.4
-7.4
-7.5
-7.55
-7.7
-7.75
-7.9
-8
-8.05
-8.15
-8.2
-8.3
-8.3
-8.4
-8.45
-8.5
-8.5
-8.6
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8
-8.85
-8.95
-9.1
-9.2
196
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.4
-9.4
-9.5
-9.55
-9.5
-9.65
-9.6
-9.65
-9.65
-9.75
-9.85
-9.95
-9.95
-10
-10
-10.15
-10.1
-10.15
-10.15
-10.2
-10.25
-10.25
CH 1400
Distance
0
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.45
-9.45
-9.5
-9.5
-9.55
-9.65
-9.7
-9.8
-9.9
-9.95
-9.95
-9.9
-9.95
-10
-10.05
-10.15
-10.2
-10.2
-10.15
-10.2
-10.25
-10.3
-10.35
-10.35
-10.4
-10.45
-10.5
-10.5
-10.6
-10.6
-9.2
-9.3
-9.25
-9.3
-9.35
-9.3
-9.45
-9.5
-9.45
-9.45
-9.55
-9.7
-9.75
-9.8
-9.75
-9.8
-9.85
-9.9
-9.9
-10
-10
-10.05
-10.15
-10.25
-10.25
-10.2
-10.2
-10.3
-10.3
-10.35
-10.4
-10.45
-10.55
-9.25
-9.2
-9.25
-9.3
-9.4
-9.45
-9.4
-9.5
-9.5
-9.6
-9.65
-9.7
-9.75
-9.75
-9.85
-9.9
-9.9
-9.9
-10
-10.05
-10.05
-10.1
-10.15
-10.2
-10.25
-10.3
-10.35
-10.4
-10.45
-10.45
(All levels in m LSD)
Profile 2003
48
Profile 2005
48
Profile 2006
48
Profile 2007
48
197
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
43.1
38.2
33.5
29
28.9
31.6
35
35.4
35.5
33.2
30
27.8
22.8
17
11
5.55
1.45
-0.3
-1.05
-1.4
-2.15
-2.5
-2.6
-2.75
-3.1
-3.3
-3.6
-3.85
-4.15
-4.3
-4.55
-4.7
-4.85
-4.95
-5.05
-5.2
-5.3
-5.3
-5.55
-5.7
43.1
38.2
33.5
29
28.9
31.6
35
35.4
35.5
33.2
30.2
27.8
23.5
17
11
3.5
2.7
2.1
-1.3
-1.5
-1.65
-1.85
-2.2
-2.65
-3.2
-3.6
-3.85
-4.1
-4.2
-4.25
-4.45
-4.7
-4.8
-4.85
-5.05
-5.2
-5.25
-5.25
-5.35
-5.4
43.1
38.2
33.5
29
28.9
31.6
35
35.4
35.5
33.2
30.2
27.8
23.5
17
11
3.5
2.7
2.1
-1.6
-1.9
-1.95
-2.15
-2.5
-3
-3.35
-3.65
-3.85
-4.05
-4.2
-4.2
-4.4
-4.6
-4.8
-4.95
-5
-5.15
-5.25
-5.35
-5.4
-5.45
43.1
38.2
33.5
29
28.9
31.6
35
35.4
35.5
33.2
30.2
27.8
23.5
17
11
3.5
2.7
2.1
-1.7
-0.75
-1.4
-1.8
-2.4
-2.85
-3.2
-3.45
-3.75
-4.05
-4.25
-4.45
-4.55
-4.65
-4.75
-4.9
-5.1
-5.25
-5.45
-5.6
-5.8
-5.9
198
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
-5.8
-5.85
-5.9
-5.95
-6
-6.1
-6.05
-6.2
-6.25
-6.3
-6.4
-6.45
-6.5
-6.55
-6.65
-6.85
-6.9
-6.95
-7.1
-7.15
-7.15
-7.3
-7.3
-7.45
-7.55
-7.6
-7.65
-7.8
-7.8
-7.9
-7.9
-8.05
-8.05
-8.2
-8.3
-8.4
-8.45
-8.45
-8.6
-8.6
-5.35
-5.5
-5.6
-5.7
-5.75
-5.8
-5.95
-6.15
-6.2
-6.35
-6.4
-6.45
-6.5
-6.8
-6.95
-7.05
-7.1
-7.15
-7.35
-7.4
-7.35
-7.4
-7.45
-7.45
-7.55
-7.6
-7.7
-7.8
-7.85
-7.95
-8.1
-8.15
-8.2
-8.25
-8.35
-8.4
-8.5
-8.6
-8.7
-8.7
-5.45
-5.45
-5.55
-5.75
-5.85
-6
-6.05
-6
-6.15
-6.2
-6.3
-6.45
-6.5
-6.55
-6.6
-6.65
-6.65
-6.65
-6.75
-6.9
-7
-7.05
-7.15
-7.3
-7.5
-7.55
-7.6
-7.65
-7.75
-7.95
-8.05
-8.1
-8.15
-8.2
-8.2
-8.3
-8.35
-8.4
-8.55
-8.6
-6
-6.05
-6.1
-6.15
-6.2
-6.15
-6.25
-6.25
-6.35
-6.35
-6.4
-6.6
-6.7
-6.8
-6.8
-6.9
-7
-7
-7.05
-7.05
-7.2
-7.3
-7.4
-7.5
-7.5
-7.55
-7.6
-7.65
-7.75
-7.85
-7.85
-8
-8.1
-8.1
-8.2
-8.3
-8.35
-8.5
-8.55
-8.65
199
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
-8.7
-8.7
-8.8
-8.95
-9
-9.05
-9.1
-9.15
-9.2
-9.25
-9.25
-9.4
-9.4
-9.4
-9.55
-9.55
-9.5
-9.6
-9.65
-9.65
-9.8
-9.75
-9.75
-9.75
-9.9
-9.95
-10.05
-10.05
-10.05
-10.2
-10.1
-10.25
-10.3
-10.3
-10.4
-10.4
-10.4
-8.75
-8.85
-8.85
-8.95
-9.05
-9.05
-9.1
-9.2
-9.2
-9.25
-9.35
-9.35
-9.45
-9.5
-9.55
-9.65
-9.7
-9.65
-9.75
-9.8
-9.85
-9.9
-9.9
-9.9
-9.95
-10.05
-10.05
-10.15
-10.2
-10.25
-10.3
-10.3
-10.35
-10.35
-10.35
-10.45
-10.4
-10.45
-10.5
-10.5
-8.65
-8.7
-8.8
-8.8
-8.85
-8.9
-9
-9.05
-9.1
-9.15
-9.15
-9.2
-9.2
-9.35
-9.45
-9.55
-9.55
-9.5
-9.45
-9.55
-9.65
-9.7
-9.8
-9.75
-9.9
-9.9
-9.95
-10
-10
-10
-10.1
-10.15
-10.25
-10.35
-10.35
-10.35
-10.35
-10.3
-10.35
-10.4
-8.75
-8.75
-8.85
-8.85
-8.95
-9.05
-9.1
-9.15
-9.2
-9.3
-9.3
-9.35
-9.45
-9.45
-9.45
-9.5
-9.55
-9.6
-9.65
-9.75
-9.75
-9.8
-9.85
-9.8
-9.85
-9.9
-10
-10.05
-10.1
-10.15
-10.2
-10.25
-10.25
-10.3
-10.35
-10.3
-10.3
-10.3
-10.4
-10.4
200
1210
1220
1230
1240
1250
-10.55
-10.65
-10.65
-10.6
-10.65
-10.45
-10.45
-10.5
-10.5
-10.5
-10.4
-10.35
-10.45